iStock_000059431418_Large_scaled

Why we support mandatory national GMO labeling

Today the New York Times wrote about Campbell’s decision to support mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Campbell’s President and CEO Denise Morrison shared the message below with our employees about the reasons behind our decision.

Taking a Major Step Forward as We Live Our Purpose

At Campbell, we are unleashing the power of our Purpose, Real food that matters for life’s moments. Our Purpose calls for us to acknowledge that consumers appreciate what goes into our food, and why—so they can feel good about the choices they make, for themselves and their loved ones.

Today, consistent with our Purpose, we announced our support for mandatory national labeling of products that may contain genetically modified organisms (GMO) and proposed that the federal government provide a national standard for non-GMO claims made on food packaging.

We are operating with a “Consumer First” mindset. We put the consumer at the center of everything we do.  That’s how we’ve built trust for nearly 150 years.  We have always believed that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food.  GMO has evolved to be a top consumer food issue reaching a critical mass of 92% of consumers in favor of putting it on the label.

In addition, we have declared our intention to set the standard for transparency in the food industry. We have been openly discussing our ingredients, including those derived from GMO crops, through our WhatsinmyFood.com website.  We are supporting digital disclosure through the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s (GMA) SmartLabel™ program.  We have announced the removal of artificial colors and flavors from our products.  However, our support of mandatory federal GMO labeling sets a new bar for transparency.

There is currently no federal regulation requiring labeling that informs consumers about the presence of GMOs in their food.  In the absence of federal action, many states—from California to Maine—have attempted to address this issue. Campbell has opposed this state-by-state patchwork approach, and has worked with GMA to defeat several state ballot initiatives. Put simply, although we believe that consumers have the right to know what’s in their food, we also believe that a state-by-state piecemeal approach is incomplete, impractical and costly to implement for food makers. More importantly, it’s confusing to consumers.

Most recently, Vermont passed legislation that will require food companies including Campbell to label products regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that may contain ingredients made from GMO crops.  However, this legislation does not include products with meat or poultry, because they are regulated by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).  Under Vermont law, SpaghettiO’s original variety, guided by the FDA, will be labeled for the presence of GMOs, but SpaghettiO’s meatballs, guided by the USDA, will not.  Yet these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf, which is bound to create consumer confusion.

Campbell has been actively involved in trying to resolve this issue since 2011. We’ve worked with GMA, legislators and regulators to forge a national voluntary solution. We’ve engaged a variety of stakeholders, from lawmakers to activists. I’ve personally made multiple trips to Capitol Hill to meet with elected officials. Despite these efforts, Congress has not been able to resolve this issue. We now believe that proposing a mandatory national solution is necessary. Printing a clear and simple statement on the label is the best solution for consumers and for Campbell.

I want to stress that we’re in no way disputing the science behind GMOs or their safety. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe and that foods derived from crops using genetically modified seeds are not nutritionally different from other foods. In America, many farmers who grow canola, corn, soybean and sugar beets choose to use genetically modified seeds and have done so for nearly twenty years. More than 90% of these four crops in America are currently grown using GMO seeds. It takes an average of thirteen years to get a GMO seed approved by the government for safety.  Ingredients derived from these crops are in many of our products.  We also believe that GMOs and other technologies will play a crucial role in feeding the world.

We will continue to be a member of GMA and will participate in food industry initiatives that align with our Purpose and business goals. However, as a result of the change in our position on GMO labeling, Campbell is withdrawing from all efforts led by groups opposing mandatory GMO labeling legislation, including those led by GMA.

The New York Times reported on our decision, and we issued a press release. I encourage you to read both. We recognize that this announcement may spark discussion. It’s difficult to predict the exact nature of the ensuing commentary, but I suspect it will be a mixed bag. What I do know is that our decision was guided by our Purpose; rooted in our consumer-first mindset; and driven by our commitment to transparency – to be open and honest about our food. I truly believe it is the right thing to do for consumers and for our business.

Best,

Denise

 

Click here to read our press release and for a full list of ingredients we use that may be from GMO crops, click here.

 

 

Post your comment
Commenting Guidelines
  • Steven Mendelson

    This is a disappointing decision. Labeling GMOs is a bit like saying that we should label all products made with a screwdriver — we should pay attention to the product, not the technique. As you mention, genetic engineering is very useful for increasing crop yields and improving nutrition — Google “golden rice” for a good example. The mere fact that a food has been genetically engineered has no bearing on its safety, so labeling GMOs just misleads customers and hurts the adoption of beneficial genetically modified foods. It’s unfortunate that Cambell has decided to contribute to the confusion.

    • Pat_Creighton

      Campbells clearly doesn’t follow science when creating their foods.

      • Brad

        While I agree foods genetically engineered are most likely safe I am concerned the majority of these foods are modified to be Roundup ready, that is to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate. There is no doubt the use of 1.4 billion pounds per year is having a detrimental affect on native species. A good example is the dramatic decline of the Monarch butterfly, which Monsanto has acknowledged their Roundup product is responsible for. It is also becoming a groundwater contaminant, requiring a number of municipalities to install expensive water treatment systems. Studies have confirmed glyphosate use doesn’t increase crop yields over the long term versus organic farming. I prefer to know whether my food choices may have a negative impact on the environment. GMO labeling provides that. I applaud Campbell’s decision to provide transparency and because of it I will seek out their products I know do not contain ingredients which are typically grown using the Roundup herbicide (corn, soy, canola). Even if they contain other genetically engineered ingredients.

        • LJE01

          Not sure how, after acknowledging the damage Roundup (Glysophate) does, you can say GMO’s are safe. If Glysophate is so damaging to the environment, what do you think it’s doing to our bodies?

          • Brad

            If I understand you correctly I agree the enormous increase in the use of glyphosate is due to the development and marketing of glyphosate resistant GM plants. Reducing the use of glyphosate needs to be addressed, not the GM plant that complements it’s use. Of course, limiting or banning glyphosate use would likely make that plant unmarketable.

          • Bradford

            *3* comments? Dude, you are so clearly NOT ME!….LOL….

      • Sally Blackmore

        PURE SHILL COMMENT

        • TZ

          Totally!

      • Just Ice

        True, or they wouldn’t use gmos.

      • Bradford

        ….”follow”?…..wtf?….No, they *ARE* “science”:…..

    • TZ

      What? US companies already label GMOs that they ship overseas! This is a not an argument as people have a right to know what is in their food! Period!

      “Labeling of GMO’s is required in 64 countries around the world. The companies pouring in money to fight labeling actually already do it with the products they sell overseas. (General Mills, Kraft, Pepsi, Coke…) One reason European countries cite for labeling is the ability to track potential allergens.”

      Here is an example of Hershey’s syrup from the UK, where GMO labeling has been in place for many years:

      http://evolvingdish.com/misc-dish/rabbitholestew/attachment/hershey-label/

      hershey’s UK label
      http://evolvingdish.com/wp-content/themes/website/data/php/timthumb.php?src=wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Hershey-label.jpg&q=90&w=888

      Ingredients read:HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP* CORN SYRUP* WATER, COCOA, SUGAR* SALT, EMULSIFIER, (xanthum gum E415) VANILLIN, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR. *produced from genetically modified sugar beets and corn.

    • TZ

      Really Golden Rice? http://livingmaxwell.com/is-gmo-golden-rice-shocking-new-development
      Disaster – One Shocking New Development
      Max Goldberg August 13, 2015

      What GMO apologists will constantly tell you is that genetically-modified food is essential to feed the world.

      They’ve spent so much money on lobbying and influencing politicians – $572 million from 1999 to 2010 – that a majority of people in Washington D.C. have actually come to believe this nonsense. (University of Michigan’s Catherine Badgley explains here why organic can feed the world.)

      But GMOs, we are told, won’t just feed the world. They’ll supposedly nourish it as well.

      One prime example of this is GMO ‘Golden Rice’, which was touted as a way to help solve a major global health problem by providing kids adequate amounts of Vitamin A.

      A deficiency in Vitamin A causes blindness in 500,000 children each year, half of whom die within 12 months after losing their eyesight. (The GMO rice contains beta-carotene, which converts into vitamin A once inside the body).

      However, a few new revelations surrounding ‘Golden Rice’ don’t make it seem so golden. Revolting is actually a better word.

      Last year, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition announced that it would retract a paper from the Tufts University professor who claimed that GMO ‘Golden Rice’ was an effective Vitamin A supplement.

      Why?

      Major ethics violations.

      The children, parents, and teachers were not informed that the rice was genetically-engineered, that it was ‘Golden Rice, and that there were health risks with consuming this rice. Greenpeace accurately dubbed these 24 unknowing victims as “guinea pigs”.

      In an attempt to stop the retraction from The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Dr. Guangwen Tang, the Tufts University professor and author of this paper, filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction against the journal’s publisher, the American Society for Nutrition.

      On July 17th, just a few weeks ago, a Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that the publisher could retract the paper and on July 29th, it did so. The American Society for Nutrition had this to say why it retracted the study.

      — The authors are unable to provide sufficient evidence that the study had been reviewed and approved by a local ethics committee in China in a manner fully consistent with NIH (National Institute for Health) guidelines. Furthermore, the engaged institutions in China did not have US Federal Wide Assurances and had not registered their Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Review Committee).

      — The authors are unable to substantiate through documentary evidence that all parents or children involved in the study were provided with the full consent form for the study.

      Fortunately, this paper is now gone for good.

      But the more shocking development, which has received close to zero media attention, centers around how the clinical trials for this GMO ‘Golden Rice’ were conducted.

      While the American Society for Nutrition made its decision to retract the paper based solely on ethical considerations, there appears to be very serious scientific objections to this study as well.

      As reported by The Ecologist, the website says the following:

      A further objection raised to the scientific work is that the children were fed a diet rich in fat and protein – both of which would artificially raise the absorption of the beta-carotene, which is fat soluble. The meals comprised 20% fat by energy content and included 100g or 110g of pork meat, also eaten with egg, spinach and tomato soup.

      Given that Golden rice is promoted as a means to raise the standard of nutrition among poor and malnourished children, a diet so rich in meat, fat, protein and vegetables is unrealistic and thus uninformative as far as the enhanced nutrition of the ‘target group’ is concerned.

      Indeed, anyone eating so rich a diet as that given the the child subjects would be at little danger of suffering from vitamin A deficiency in the first place, since spinach, along with other green vegetables, is a good source of the necessary nutrients.

      If in fact the kids were fed (1) a diet rich in fat, which would artificially and purposefully raise the absorption of beta-carotene and (2) a diet that in no way mimics that of a malnourished child in a developing country, it is pure and utter manipulation to get the desired results.

      Can you imagine for one second what would have happened if there were no ethics violations and, thus, the scientific concerns were never uncovered?

      These manipulated results would have been sold to politicians around the globe that GMO ‘Golden Rice’ is the answer and GMOs do benefit the world, despite what GMO-opponents say.

      This example of what happened in China is exactly why we cannot trust “independent, objective studies” that claim GMOs to be perfectly safe.

      There is an agenda in our country to push GMOs, and nothing appears to be out of bounds.

    • TZ

      Maybe this will help..Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: Glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans
      T. BøhnM. CuhraT. TraavikM. SandenJ. FaganR. Primicerio
      Show more
      Highlights

      Glyphosate tolerant GM soybeans contain high residues of glyphosate and AMPA.

      Soybeans from different agricultural practices differ in nutritional quality.

      Organic soybeans showed a more healthy nutritional profile than other soybeans.

      Organic soy contained more sugars, protein and zinc, but less fibre and omega-6.

      This study rejects that GM soy is “substantially equivalent” to non-GM soybeans.
      Abstract
      This article describes the nutrient and elemental composition, including residues of herbicides and pesticides, of 31 soybean batches from Iowa, USA. The soy samples were grouped into three different categories: (i) genetically modified, glyphosate-tolerant soy (GM-soy); (ii) unmodified soy cultivated using a conventional “chemical” cultivation regime; and (iii) unmodified soy cultivated using an organic cultivation regime.

      Organic soybeans showed the healthiest nutritional profile with more sugars, such as glucose, fructose, sucrose and maltose, significantly more total protein, zinc and less fibre than both conventional and GM-soy.

      Organic soybeans also contained less total saturated fat and total omega-6 fatty acids than both conventional and GM-soy. GM-soy contained high residues of glyphosate and AMPA (mean 3.3 and 5.7 mg/kg, respectively).

      Conventional and organic soybean batches contained none of these agrochemicals.

      Using 35 different nutritional and elemental variables to characterise each soy sample, we were able to discriminate GM, conventional and organic soybeans without exception, demonstrating “substantial non-equivalence” in compositional characteristics for ‘ready-to-market’ soybeans. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814613019201

    • TZ

      Meta-analyses based on 343 peer-reviewed publications that indicate statistically significant and meaningful differences in composition between organic and non-organic crops/crop-based foods.
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24968103
      But you know the interesting thing about those studies like the Stanford study that says they aren’t nutritionally superior?
      Every one of them say something like this:
      “consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.”
      That’s enough reason alone for me to eat organic, not to mention the hundreds of banned food additives that aren’t in packed food with the Organic label.

    • TZ

      PEER-REVIEWED PAPER SUGGESTS GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SOY (GMO) PRODUCES
      EXCESS FORMALDEHYDE AND DISRUPTS NATURAL PLANT METABOLISM
      A new study published in the peer-reviewed journal AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES applies modern computational systems biology methods to reveal genetically engineered soy (the GMO) creates significant disruption to the levels of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, and glutathione, an important anti-oxidant necessary for cellular detoxification.
      http://www.integrativesystems.org/systems-biology-of-gmos/

    • TZ

      Most studies with GM foods indicate that they may cause some common toxic effects such as hepatic, pancreatic, renal, or reproductive effects and may alter the hematological, biochemical, and immunologic parameters.#1367 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18989835
      etc.”

    • TZ

      http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24

      Background
      Genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant and insect-resistant crops have been remarkable commercial successes in the United States. Few independent studies have calculated their impacts on pesticide use per hectare or overall pesticide use, or taken into account the impact of rapidly spreading glyphosate-resistant weeds. A model was developed to quantify by crop and year the impacts of six major transgenic pest-management traits on pesticide use in the U.S. over the 16-year period, 1996–2011: herbicide-resistant corn, soybeans, and cotton; Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn targeting the European corn borer; Bt corn for corn rootworms; and Bt cotton for Lepidopteron insects.

      Results
      Herbicide-resistant crop technology has led to a 239 million kilogram (527 million pound) increase in herbicide use in the United States between 1996 and 2011, while Bt crops have reduced insecticide applications by 56 million kilograms (123 million pounds). Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.

      Conclusions
      Contrary to often-repeated claims that today’s genetically-engineered crops have, and are reducing pesticide use, the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds in herbicide-resistant weed management systems has brought about substantial increases in the number and volume of herbicides applied. If new genetically engineered forms of corn and soybeans tolerant of 2,4-D are approved, the volume of 2,4-D sprayed could drive herbicide usage upward by another approximate 50%. The magnitude of increases in herbicide use on herbicide-resistant hectares has dwarfed the reduction in insecticide use on Bt crops over the past 16 years, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

      Lol he is far from a shill….here is a little more food for thought…Truth: GM Bt crops change the way in which insecticides are used
      http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/5-gm-crops-impacts-farm-environment/5-3-myth-gm-bt-crops-reduce-insecticide-use/

    • TZ

      Conclusion

      Claims that GM Bt crops reduce insecticide use fail to take into account the fact that the GM Bt crop is itself an insecticide. The amount of Bt toxin expressed in the plant is generally far greater than the amount of chemical pesticide displaced.

      Far from being safe insecticides, the Bt toxins expressed in GM Bt crops harm beneficial and non-target insects. The high levels of Bt toxin expressed in stacked-trait GM crops like SmartStax maize have not been tested to see if they are safe to eat.

      Pests are rapidly evolving resistance to the Bt toxins in GM Bt crops. Even when Bt toxins are effective in killing the target pest, secondary pests that are not controlled by Bt toxins are moving into the ecological niche. Both developments are forcing a return to chemical insecticide sprays.

      Attempts to delay pest resistance to GM Bt crops by planting refuges of non-Bt crops have not been completely successful, both because refuge recommendations have not been enforced and because refuges are not working as planned.

      It is not valid to measure insecticide use only by the amount of insecticide sprayed onto the growing crop. Increasingly insecticides are applied to seeds before planting and to soil.

      When evaluating the impact of GM Bt crops on insecticide use, a more useful comparator than chemically-grown non-GM crops would be non-GM crops under organic or integrated pest management, where insecticide use is reduced or eliminated. This would quickly make clear which farming methods can best reduce insecticide use while maximizing yield and farmer incomes. http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/5-gm-crops-impacts-farm-environment/5-3-myth-gm-bt-crops-reduce-insecticide-use/

  • Gwendolyn Huth Forster

    Thank you, Campbell. Because of this decision, I will be more likely to buy your products over others who do not disclose use of GMOs.

    • Pat_Creighton

      I guess you don’t understand that “gmos” are an agricultural process, not an ingredient. There will be absolutely nothing different in your food, other than that people like myself, who react to chemicals used in organic farming, will be able to avoid those chemicals better. It would be much better to be labelling the organic produce, which the industry has been voluntarily doing up to this point. Why change that?

      • Gwendolyn Huth Forster

        I guess you don’t understand that genetically modified products have been altered genetically to withstand pesticides. The gmos contain and absorb pesticides that we ingest when we eat this food. Are you also in support of gmo salmon?
        I would prefer to ingest organic food that was put on this earth to sustain us, not scientifically altered food.

        • 1rityls

          Funny that you are criticizing him when it is you who doesn’t understand. Some GMO’s withstand *herbicides*, not pesticides. Others produce a naturally-occurring pesticide, one that is also often applied in organic farming. You are mixing up the different types of GMO’s. In any case, herbicides and pesticides are often used regardless of whether the product is GMO or not. But, if you believe that food was “put” on this earth for us, then I guess I shouldn’t be surprised at your position. I can tell you that no plant was “put” here for us, none wants to be torn up and eaten, which is why many plants are toxic if eaten by humans. Others have defenses but aren’t enough to deter us from eating them. For example, those little hairs on plants? Those have evolved to discourage bugs from eating them.

          • Karen Scribner

            Please read a dictionary to see the definition of pesticide. It means against a pest. The pest can be an insect (insecticide) or a plant (herbicide).

          • TheLight

            Plants have no ability to not want to be eaten. They do not have brains to think with. They are not sentient beings. If plants are sentient beings, then vegetarians are worse than people who eat meat because at least meat eaters have the decency to kill the animals before they eat them. Vegetarians eat their food while it is still alive. Would you eat a sentient being while it’s still alive? I wouldn’t.

          • hyperzombie

            “Plants have no ability to not want to be eaten.”

            Yes they do! Have you ever heard of natural selection, survival of the fittest, Evolution?

          • Bradford

            Explain how plant DNA creates that “desire” to remain uneaten.
            You’re either a LIAR, CONFUSED, or a PROPAGANDIST….
            We already KNOW yur a paid shill….

          • Do you understand the natural defense mechanisms for plants and animals? Have you ever taken an evolutionary biology course before? This is not at all a unique concept.

          • Do you understand the natural defense mechanisms for plants and animals? Have you ever taken an evolutionary biology course before? This is not at all a unique concept.

          • tsyganka

            Plants actually Are sentient beings, but not as visibly sentient as, say, people. Cleve Backster settled that long ago.

            But be that as it may, ALL of us are eventually food for someone else, be it animal-animal or human-animal. Even plants (Venus flytrap, e.g.) eat other beings. Find a way to get around the food chain, and you’ll make trillions. I don’t think I’ll wait for it, though.

          • Blanche Marie Couture

            Pray tell…what should we eat then? Some of what you wrote don’t make much sense!

        • Sue Smith

          so do you think the products poop out the pesticides before reaching our table? We ingest it all sorry to say…

          • Angela Urquhart

            Organic foods are not supposed to have synthetic pesticides sprayed on them.

          • hyperzombie

            But when they test organic crops for pesticides over 40% have synthetic pesticides on them.

          • kenroseboro

            Where is the citation for that?

          • hyperzombie
          • kenroseboro

            Yes, and less than 5% have unacceptable levels. With so much spraying of pesticides on conventional farms it’s no wonder organic farms have suffered pesticide drift problems.

          • JoeFarmer

            “Yes, and less than 5% have unacceptable levels.”

            So about 5% of organic produce has unacceptable levels. But only 0.36% of ordinary produce according to the latest (2014) USDA Pesticide Data Program report has unacceptable levels.

            So, you are 14 times more likely to find an unacceptable level of pesticide residue in organic food! How do you explain that, Ken?

            “With so much spraying of pesticides on conventional farms it’s no wonder organic farms have suffered pesticide drift problems.”

            Typical disingenuous statement from you. There is no way spray drift would account for the residue levels found in organic produce and you know it.

          • Hehe, pesticide drift.

          • JoeFarmer

            Ken’s livelihood is tied to the organic industry. Big surprise, huh?

          • This thread is a cesspool of irrational fear and ignorance. It’s depressing to see.

          • JoeFarmer

            Just like every other discussion thread involving ag biotechnology…

          • Bradford

            Well, it’s encouraging and heartening, to BigAG, Wall St., the Global Banksters, etc…..

          • How so?

          • Bradford

            ……BOGUS!…..
            FSMPastapharian = redirects to CAMPBELLS….
            ….PAID SHILL & TROLL ALERT!………….

          • What does that even mean?
            @mod please remove these posts making such bogus accusations.

          • Bradford

            You’re a shill for BigAg, and Pharma. What’s the difference?

          • JoeFarmer

            Brainless response on your part.

          • tsyganka

            It’s due to wind, rain, and runoff from biocides used on GMO and conventionally grown crops.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, it cant be. Even conventional crops only have detectable levels on 60% of crops, Organic is 45%.

          • TROLL WARNING! This guy (is it a guy?) is a paid shill. He hides behind a pseudonym. Look at his profile. He only comments on articles about GMO’s and has an amazing array of “facts” no matter what aspect someone comments on. Whatever your opinion, don’t get suckered by this loser.

          • hyperzombie

            Funny, I comment on farming issues, because maybe I am a farmer. Duh.
            I think you need to look up the definition of a Troll.

          • “maybe”
            Yeah OK. What’s your real name? What’s your farm’s name? What city/state is it in?

            You spend a lot of time defending GMO’s. Are GMO’s the only concern farmers have?

            (it’s fun to poke a troll!)

          • hyperzombie

            “What’s your real name?”
            Who are you, where do you work and where do you live?
            “What’s your farm’s name?”
            WTH, I didn’t get the memo that stated that my farm needs a kitschy name. well today the name of my farm “Why the heck is it raining in the middle of winter when I want to snowmobile, farm” yesterday my better half named it “Stop loaning my stuff to your brother, cause he never brings it back Farm”, So I guess we are still working on an official name.
            “What city”
            Funny, see many farms in the suburbs? Been slowed down by the morning combine traffic? How about the cultivator traffic?
            Seriously the nearest real city to me is Edmonton, and it is in Canada.
            Yep not all igloos here, we have farms as well.
            “You spend a lot of time defending GMO’s”
            Well that is because 99% of the farming comment are from city folk that know nothing about farming and they only want to talk about GMOs and Roundup.
            When is the last time you saw a discussion thread about the birth weight of calves, maximizing the nutrition of alfalfa, seed depth, or even something simple like the best height of barbed wire fence in the prairies?

            Umm once again you really need to look up the definition of a troll.

          • Bradford

            YOU need to look up the definition of “brain-dead, brainwashed ZOMBIE. And “shill”…. I know it’s Winter in Edmonton, but don’t you have some tractors to oil, or something? A bigger concern with GMO’s IS the dramatically higher cost & use of pesticides, and herbicides, etc.,….

          • @mod spam. repeated baseless shill accusations. please remove.

          • Bradford

            Liar. Cite the studies, and statistics. We’ll keep waiting for that evidence & documentation, but we won’t hold our breaths….

          • hyperzombie
          • Bradford

            Troll *ALERT* This hyperzombie guy is a paid shill. He hides behind a pseudonym so you can’t trace who his benefactors are. Look at his profile. He only comments on articles about GMO’s and has an amazing array of “facts” no matter what aspect someone comments on. Whatever your opinion, don’t get suckered by this loser. Amen, brother!

          • Any proof to back up these astounding accusations? Maybe he replies to these articles because it an area of interest and expertise for him.

          • Bradford

            ….LOL…….FSMPastapharian = redirects to CAMPBELLS!….
            …..LOL………….PAID SHILL & TROLL ALERT!

          • @mod please remove these posts making such bogus accusations.

          • TsuDhoNimh

            No, but they have a long list of “approved for organic” pesticides they are sprayed with.

            These pesticides are NOT tested for – organic producers are tested for synthetic pesticides only, because they want to make sure they aren’t “cheating”, but there is no way to know how much pesticide of the “approved” variety you are eating.

          • RonK

            They use “natural” pesticides. Many of which are more harmful and less biodegradable then the synthetic ones. Organic is a marketing scam and nothing more. It’s not better for you and in some cases, worse.

          • tsyganka

            You haven’t carefully read what Gwendolyn said. GMO products are designed to systemically absorb the carcinogenic glyphosate (Roundup) etc. that they’re sprayed with. Whoever eats the plant/product eats the poison. – Organic products, in contrast, are Not sprayed with poisons or grown in poisons.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Almost none of that is correct.

        • hyperzombie

          There are Non GMO crops that are also bred to withstand pesticides.

          • J Thomas

            Oh Jesus tap-dancing Christ! Something that is “bred” is being done to genetically alter the original plant. How the alteration is accomplished is something to discuss, but not this false disparity; GMO vs cloning/breeding is totally wrong and not especially helpful to anyone.

          • hyperzombie

            “but not this false disparity; GMO vs cloning/breeding is totally wrong and not especially helpful to anyone.”

            What is the difference? If I used conventional breeding to produce a crop that was herbicide tolerant or GE to produce one, they would still be the same.

          • Bradford

            No they wouldn’t. Conventional breeding is NATURAL. GMO’s are SYNTHESIZED. Please stop playing headgames & word games, OK?….

          • Synthesized? that’s an odd word. How are genes synthesized?

          • tsyganka

            Whether or not you Sprayed the crop would make a difference.
            Real organic doesn’t use biocides.

          • hyperzombie

            Organic does use biocides, lots of them.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            I would check the NOP standards before making such an obviously incorrect pronouncement.

          • Bradford

            Not by laboratory-based, technological genetic insertion, they’re not

          • Isn’t it great that we can breed so selectively now, only altering the specific gene(s) we want rather than the hundreds of randomly associated genes that were also altered with traditional methods?

        • J Thomas

          Naive is not acceptable in this day of information Do you not know (really) that virtually everything you buy has been genetically modified?

          It’s called CLONING and has been in use all over the world for a long long long time. Got a problem with that?

          • Bradford

            *IF* what you say is true, then *YOU* have also been “genetically modified”
            You really DO NOT understand “epigenetics”, do you?

          • Do you? It’s a fairly new field, though post transcriptional modification of DNA has been known for decades, how these modifications serve to regulate genetic expression is pretty cutting edge! Isn’t science great?

          • Bradford

            Sharpened sticks were “cutting edge”, long ago.
            Do you have a point that’s not a forked tongue?

          • The point was clear: you know nothing about epigenetics. It’s just a cool buzzword that you mistakenly think makes you seem smarter than you are. Otherwise you would have answered my questions.

          • Bradford

            Yes, I do “seem” smarter than YOU ARE, simply because *I**AM*!
            Your under-educated and over-simplified thought processes are
            on full display here. In your narcissism, you are BLIND to the more probable REALITY that I just don’t give a hoot about your bloviated ego, and the mental masturbation you’re jerking yourself around to.
            The edifice of ignorance you espouse would have us believe that
            “genetics” is a form of biological “fate”, or “destiny”, rather than the rough sketch which it more closely resembles.
            Well, what do *YOU* know about epigenetics, punk?
            (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction
            ps: Let’s keep in mind, that MAD(ison Ave.)MEN are *still* spinning, hyping, distorting, and yes, *LYING* about both GMO’s, and labeling.
            And let’s BOTH hope the better angels of their NATUREs, and cooler HEADS of Campbells do prevail….A grilled cheese and Campbells’ Tomato Soup is STILL my go-to American Soul Food, and Comfort Food choice….*semper**fidelis*Americanus*morbidus*….
            ~silentum~;~excubitor~
            .rides.legacy.773.
            ~B.

          • I’m sure you’re not. And your posts read like the ramblings of a madman. And what’s with the ridiculous signature? Are you afraid people are stealing these works of prose?

          • aidan morris

            Bradford you have an inferiority complex and i urge you to seek therapy. The world is not waiting for your next thought. May i remind you what everyone reading your comments think: you’re a nobody.
            So dial it back girl.

          • Bradford

            In well over 2 years on > disqus <, YOU, Mr. Aidan Morris, have written less than 200 comments.
            Can YOU give me ANY good reason I should give you ANY credibility?
            Yes, ok, I'm a "nobody", as YOU claim…..
            Can YOU give me ANY good reason I should give a F**K?….
            …and "dial it back girl"….wtf?…. THAT'S *IT*….????….
            If that's all you got punk, then you got less than ZERO….
            Ad hominem much, kiddo?….
            Why don't you say something about Campbells' and their valiant
            attempts at some good PR, and the collection of user data?
            GMO labelling?….
            Corporate Big AG?
            Monsanto? The GMA?
            Anything? Nothing? R U just a troll, or a paid shill? Me, I'm
            (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

            ps: Any thoughts on exactly what kind of “therapy” you think I need
            PUNK?…….
            ~fin/

          • Bradford

            Even this morning – 02/10/2016, if I click on the blue-boxed “reply to” in the disqus email notification, it redirects to a Campbells 404 error page.
            But if I click on “read more”, under my own comment in that same email – well,….here we are…..
            At least you’re still here, and *MAYBE**YOU’re learning, kiddo….
            (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

          • Is it my problem you haven’t learned how to work that whole internet thing yet? Are you going to go on another drama queen hissy fit again so I can have another page worth of your useless posts deleted again?

          • Bradford

            No. Why do you ask?

          • Because based on what I’ve seen from you so far, it seemed likely.

        • RonK

          Sorry. Incorrect on all counts. No, the GMO foods do not have higher levels of pesticides than non GMO or organic foods. And yes, the GMO salmon is perfectly safe. I actually did some work on that project as a student.
          And I could tell you all about the pesticides and toxic chemicals in your organic food., But you won’t believe me anyhow so what’s the point?

      • okaaay

        They are an “ingredient” (something of material reality) which is why you can test for their presence, and partly Monsanto can sue for their unauthorized presence in farmer’s fields.

        http://naturalsociety.com/even-ban-gmos-can-gmo-contamination-ever-stopped/
        http://seedfreedom.in/learn/

        • hyperzombie

          GMos are not an ingredient, it is a plant breeding method. Just like radiation mutagenesis and clones are not ingredients either, and you can test for them as well. You can sue farmers for growing unauthorized Non GMOs as well.

          • razorjack

            Genetic engineering is a breeding method. The organisms created buy genetic engineering are GMOs.

          • hyperzombie

            It is “by” not “buy”, and it is still not an ingredient.

          • razorjack

            Thanks for the correction zombieboy. I’ve corrected the typo.

            You have a new avitar, it that you in drag, $hill boy?

          • Bradford

            Would you “breed” your CHILDREN by that “method”….????….

          • Hopefully, he doesn’t breed at all.

          • razorjack

            I wouldn’t use genetic engineering to create any life form.

          • okaaay

            GMOs are an “ingredient,” produced by gene splicing. Just like nuclear waste is an “ingredient” Because a method, of some kind, produces an “ingredient,” doesn’t mean it the ingredient is non existent.

            It will be labelled if its in MY food, so I can avoid it.

            The people getting sued are near 100% victims of GMO infestation or attempted GMO seed savers, while GMO type patents are being used as a wedge to expand totalitarian control of nature through lawsuits

            http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/303/seeds/the-role-of-ge-seeds-and-the-patent-system

          • hyperzombie

            “GMOs are an “ingredient,” produced by genetic engineering.”

            GMOs are plant traits, and they are not ingredients.

            “Just like nuclear waste is an “ingredient” produced by nuclear engineering.”

            Funny, are you this stunned in person as well as on the internet?

            “It will be labelled if its in MY food, so I can avoid it.”

            You already have 2 labels to avoid GMOs, use them. Companies and growers went out of there way to make these foods just for nutcases like you. So I am sure that they would love your support.

            No one has ever been sued for inadvertent cross contamination, another crazy myth peddled by Organic elitist pricks.

          • okaaay

            GMOs possess traits. They are an ingredient. They will be labelled.
            They already are in almost every developed and semi developed country in the world.

            http://www.justlabelit.org/right-to-know-center/labeling-around-the-world/

            Let’s label the particular trait, along with the presence of GE as well.

            So, it’s like, what? 99%of GMOs have these “traits”

            1) producing toxins that cause the insects that eat them to have their stomachs burst open,

            2)capable of tolerating and absorbing more carcinogenic, deadly
            herbicides. That should be included on the label as well!! Right?

            http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/3-health-hazards-gm-foods/3-8-myth-gm-bt-insecticidal-crops-harm-insects-harmless-animals-people/

            http://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-roundup-cancer-idUSKBN0MG2NY20150320

          • hyperzombie

            “GMOs possess traits.”

            All modern crops have traits, that is the whole point of plant breeding.

          • okaaay

            Genetic engineering is not plant breeding. GMOs are an ingredient which has traits. Glad we agree!

          • hyperzombie

            I never agreed and you are a nutcase.

          • okaaay

            “No one has ever been sued for inadvertent cross contamination, another crazy myth peddled by Organic elitist pricks.”

            http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2008/05/monsanto200805
            “Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically
            modified seeds. […]Just as frightening
            as the corporation’s tactics–ruthless legal battles against small
            farmers–is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.”

            http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/issues/303/seeds/effects-on-farmers-and-the-environment

            As of November 28, 2012, Monsanto had filed 142 lawsuits against
            farmers for alleged violations of its Technology Agreement and/or its
            patents on genetically engineered seeds.
            Monsanto has sued farmers and small farm businesses in at least 27 different states.
            Sums awarded to Monsanto in 72 recorded judgments against farmers totaled $23,675,820.99.

            I trust data provided by environmental activists and testimony of farmers over BS provided by pathetic “pricks” paid by Monsanto to AstroTurf the internet.

          • hyperzombie

            Wow 142 lawsuits and not one for inadvertent contamination.and your so called environmental activists never found one, ever.
            All Monsanto’s court awards are donated to charities, so evil.

          • okaaay

            Wow 142 lawsuits and not one for inadvertent contamination.and your so called environmental activists never found one, ever.”

            Wow! Please stop lying
            From 2004:
            http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/files/cfsmonsantovsfarmerreport11305.pdf

            ” Farmers have been sued after their field was contaminated by pollen or seed from someone else’s genetically engineered crop; when genetically engineered seed from a previous year’s crop has sprouted, or “volunteered,” in fields planted with non-genetically engineered varieties the following year; and when they never signed Monsanto’s technology agreement but still planted the patented
            crop seed.

            In all of these cases, because of the way patent law has been applied, farmers are technically liable. It does not appear to matter if the use was unwitting or a contract was never signed.

            As growing numbers of farmers become subject to harassment, investigation, and prosecution by Monsanto over supposed infringement of its seed patents and technology agreements, there will have to be increased pressure to reverse the governmental policies that are allowing this persecution.

            Various policy options include passing local and state-wide bans or moratoriums on plantings of genetically engineered crops; amending the Patent Act so that genetically engineered plants will no longer be patentable subject matter and so that seed saving is not considered patent infringement; and legislating to prevent farmers from being liable for patent infringement through biological
            pollution. ”

            Also, 142 lawsuits filed, but there have been 1000s of folk terrorized into pre legally settling w/ Monsanto and still more terrorized into buying Monsanto product by threat of their legal action.

            Take the time to read the report, readers!

          • hyperzombie

            LOL, this whole issue has been through the courts in the USA and there is 0 evidence of any farmer being sued for inadvertent contamination.

            From the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, maybe you will believe them. 2013

            http://www.osgata.org/osgata-et-al-v-monsanto/

          • okaaay

            From your link:

            “Farmers were denied the right to argue their case in court and gain
            protection from potential abuse by the agrichemical and genetic
            engineering giant, Monsanto.”

            I sure do! LOL G’night!

          • hyperzombie

            “Farmers were denied the right to argue their case in court”

            LOL, so funny. All the court documents are at the bottom of the page. The judge dismissed the case because the OSGTA couldn’t find one case where Monsanto sued for cross contamination. EPIC FAIL…All the court documents are listed and you can read the judgements.

          • Signify

            Lawsuits are not the only means to control agriculture producers. Even abroad, small farmers have to pick up their pitchforks in the attempt to grow non-gmo crops.

          • hyperzombie

            How so? Non GMOs are easy to get anywhere.

          • Signify

            “Non GMOs are easy to get anywhere.? ? What has that got to do with pressure put on farmers to grow them. Nothing.

          • Bradford

            Bull. S**T. Show us the “Charity Navigtaor” DETAILS!

          • hyperzombie

            Nope all legal court awards are donated to local charities.

          • Jason

            You appear to have succumbed to activist propaganda. First… I can have a dozen ways to produce bread, but the output is still bread… right? The production process does not dictate the ingredient.

            Second, your nonsense about farmers being sued over cross pollination is total internet rumor. There simply is no legal basis to sue a farmer over something that they have no control over. Farmers have been sued when they have knowingly attempted to use patented technology without purchasing a license for that technology.

            Court cases are a matter of public record. All you ‘d need to do is find 1 single instance of anyone ever having been sued over cross pollination.

          • Cheryl Greninger

            No, you cannot sue farmers for growing “unauthorized” foods. Who gave you that misinformation?? What foods are unauthorized?? Cite a case where that happened.

          • hyperzombie

            Sure you can. A patent holder of any crop you can sue farmers for reusing seed without permission. It is even worse in the orchard business, most new fruit crops are patented and trademarked, Farmers growing them not only are not allowed to reproduce the trees, they have to pay royalties for the life of the tree. Jazz apples, pink lady apples.

            Here is a type of Non GMO corn that you cant reuse due to patents.

            http://www.burpee.com/vegetables/corn/corn-amaize-hybrid-prod003386.html?catId=cat90042&categoryFromRefinement=true&omn2pd=bz

          • Bradford

            No, *YOU* can sue them, because YOU are EVIL! The Bible clearly states that: “love of money is the root of all evil”….And you LOVE your MONSANTO-MONEY, doncha’?

          • tsyganka

            GMOs are things & thus can be ingredients. Genetic engineering, aka genetic modification, is the process.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, GM is a plant breeding method. GMO corn is just corn.

        • Jason

          That’s like saying “Hybridized corn” is an ingredient or “radioactively mutated grapefruit” is an ingredient or “polyploid melon” is an ingredient.

          No.. those are methods to produce corn, or to produce grapefruit or to produce other plants. But the plants still all yield the same thing. The fact that we can test for specific genetics applies to every kind of plant. We can test for a specific hybrid. We can test for a specific soy variety. Does that mean that we are “different ingredients”? No… they’re all just corn.

          • Bradford

            You don’t have a clue what “epigenetics” is, DO YOU?

          • You keep using that word, but I do not think it means what you think that it means.

          • Bradford

            FSMPastapharian = redirects to CAMPBELLS….
            PAID SHILL & TROLL ALERT! ….YOU won’t define it, either, BECAUSE:
            FSMPastapharian = redirects to CAMPBELLS….
            PAID SHILL & TROLL ALERT!

          • @mod please remove these repeated spam posts making bogus accusations.

          • Bradford

            Prove that you’re NOT a paid shill….can you?

          • Bradford

            OK, wise guy, what do YOU think it means…..????….
            Feel free to wiki

          • Jason

            You’re not even close to getting the point of my statements, are you?

          • Bradford

            Good question, Jason. Gee, I don’t know.
            WHAT is your point?

          • tsyganka

            Really? I guess you bought the dictum from former Monsanto employee now FDA employee Michael Taylor that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to normal food. As a revolving-door political appointee, he ignored the warnings from FDA’s own safety experts. That’s what Monsanto paid him to do.

        • Bradford

          Yeah, the “unauthorized presence” CAUSED by *DRIFTING* on the wind!
          So, by your twisted & distorted “logic”, Monsanto has NO CASE, against an “Act of God”(Nature)….right?

          • If drifting on the wind results in contamination of non-GMO fields, it is my understanding that Monsanto will clean it up themselves at their expense. If, however, an entire field consists of non-licensed GMOs, then don’t you think it’s safe to assume that someone was maybe saving GMO seeds and deliberately growing them? In that case, don’t you think Monsanto is entitled to protect their IP?

          • tsyganka

            Monsanto sues farmers on the slightest excuse, including just a few plants in an entire field.

          • That’s a false statement. Do a better job checking your sources.

      • Debbie Owen

        I guess you don’t understand the difference between the process and what was produced by the process. GMOs are genetically modified organisms and organisms are not an agricultural process.

      • Angela Urquhart

        I think you must have the GMO and Organics confused.

      • TZ

        BS!I am sick of this lie being spread all over by pro GMOers! Genetic engineering is a process and GMO Genetically Modified Organism is the product of this process! Let me get rudimentary for you….
        GMO
        noun
        1.
        genetically modified organism: an organism or microorganism whose genetic material has been altered by means of genetic engineering.
        Dictionary.com Unabridged
        Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2016.

      • Amanda Castle

        Genetically modified organism, for the purpose of this discussion, means using a bacteria or virus to convey bt toxin (round up ready) into the plant nucleus whereby it starts making is own bt toxin to repel pests, and also makes the plant more tolerant of the use of Round Up externally. This means that whatever eats that plant or its seeds is consuming bt toxin in ever increasing amounts. Bt toxin is a known endocrine disruptor. It has been shown in animals fed GMO feed vs animals eating no -gmo feed, upon necropsy, the animals having consumed the gmo feed showing significant digestive tract disease and inflammation. The animals did not thrive as compared to the non-gmo animals. It means simply that the gmo feed made the animals sick, and then they butcher and sell those sick animals to you and I. I’d prefer the option to consume plant and animal products that I can reasonably rely on NOT having been spliced or fed GMO.

        • hyperzombie

          “This means that whatever eats that plant or its seeds is consuming bt toxin in ever increasing amounts”

          Nope, where did you get this info from? The Bt in GMo crops is concentrated in the roots and leaves, seed has very little Bt.

          “Bt toxin is a known endocrine disruptor.”

          Also untrue. Bt is harmless to humans.

          “The animals did not thrive as compared to the non-gmo animals.”

          Borderline crazy, GMOs have been fed to livestock for 20 years now, and they are healthier than ever

          • kfunk937

            Bt is harmless to humans.

            Which is why it’s approved pesticide in certified organic farming. In plants engineered to express Cry proteins (the Bt product, concentrated in the roots and leaves) the Cry proteins are harmless to humans, too. Mammals are completely unaffected.

            GMO feeds have been in use for decades. No tumours. No sick weaklings. The meat and dairy industries have not crashed.

            Anti-GMO lies are marketing. People are being lied to, and apparently liking it. Meh.

          • okaaay

            Can you please post a copy of your medical license so I can have some backing of your assurance BT GMOs are safe?

            http://earthopensource.org/gmomythsandtruths/sample-page/3-health-hazards-gm-foods/3-8-myth-gm-bt-insecticidal-crops-harm-insects-harmless-animals-people/

            “Natural Bt is used as an insecticidal spray in chemically-based and
            organic farming, and is claimed to have a history of safe use and to
            only affect certain types of insect. Regulators assume that GM Bt crops must also be harmless to humans and other mammals.

            But these assumptions are incorrect. Natural Bt toxin is different
            from the Bt toxins produced in GM crops and behaves differently in the environment. GM Bt plants express the pesticide in every cell throughout their life, so that the plants themselves become a pesticide. Even natural Bt has never intentionally been part of the human diet and cannot be claimed to have a history of safe use.”

          • JoeFarmer

            “Can you please post a copy of your medical license…”

            Did you make that same request of the author of the “story” you linked to? I say “story” because it’s certainly not a scientific paper.

          • okaaay

            Post your real name, a copy of your medical license, or post graduate degree in a relevant field. Thanks!

            When anyone demands another takes a health risk, despite copious amount of evidence of its dangers, he should show evidence of competence and be accountable. Don’tcha think?

            Here are GMO truths and Myths authors credentials:

            “Michael Antoniou, PhD in molecular genetics, and is head of Gene Expression and Therapy Group at King’s College London School of Medicine London, UK.

            He has 28 years of experience in the use of genetic engineering technology investigating gene organization and control, with over 40 peer reviewed publications of original work, and hold inventor status on a number of gene expression biotechnology patents. Dr Antoniou has a large network of collaborators in industry and academia who are making use of his discoveries in gene control mechanisms for the production of research, diagnostic and therapeutic products and human somatic gene therapies for inherited and acquired genetic disorders.

            John Fagan, PhDin molecular biology, and is a leading authority on sustainability in the food system, biosafety and GMO testing. He is founder and chief scientific officer of Global ID Group, a company with companies involved in GMO food testing and GMO-free certification. He is a director of Earth Open Source. Earlier, he conducted cancer research at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) and in academia. He holds a PhD in biochemistry and molecular and cell biology from Cornell University.

            Claire Robinson, MPhil, is a research director at Earth Open Source. She has a background in investigative reporting and the communication of topics relating to public health, science and policy, and the environment. She is an editorat GMWatch (www.gmwatch.org).”

            Now you go…Your name? Your credentials? I wanna know why I should listen to YOU?

            Moreover, the report is well referenced with peer reviewed and other relevant scientific literature! Thanks!

          • JoeFarmer

            Gee, thanks for the Gish Gallop. That proves conclusively that you’re not qualified to have a grown up discussion. Thanks for playing!

          • Bradford

            JoeFarmer= Joe 6-pack = G.I. Joe MO = GMO G.I.Joe…..LOL….

          • Bradford

            ….”no tumors”, and “no sick weaklings” does NOT mean “safe”, -OR-
            desirable. You can keep your MACHINE-FOOD, Klaatu!….

          • tsyganka

            Monsanto myths.
            Speak particularly to farmers in India who were duped into using Bt cotton.

          • kfunk937

            Another Vandana lie. Farmer suicides, right? Preceded cotton with the Bt trait. Come back when you grow up, eh?

          • Bradford

            ….and increasingly drug-dependent, too….

          • hyperzombie

            Funny, where do you get this stuff.,

          • tsyganka

            Indian cattle that had previously grazed unharmed on normal cotton plants after bolls were harvested grew sick and died after grazing on Bt cotton plants. Moreover, agricultural workers suffered severe allergies and respiratory problems.

            Additionally, over 200,000 farmers in India committed bankruptcy-related suicide due to Monsanto’s lies about its Bt cotton (matters of increased seed prices, increased Roundup prices, and necessity for expensive irrigation whereas most of India’s crops are rain-fed).

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, nothing to do with GMO cotton. GM crops have been fed to NA livestock for over 20 years now, without a problem.
            Bt is non toxic to humans, you have most likely been sprayed with it many times, without even knowing it.

            No farmers commit suicide over seed prices, it is one of the lowest imput costs in farming. There are NO Roundup ready crops in India, plus the price dropped over 50%.

            GMO is just a plant trait, if the cotton was rain fed before it would be after the GMo process. It is the same plant just with an additional trait.

            PS Bt is also Organic farmings number one pesticide, they use it on almost all crops.

          • tsyganka

            I read news from India. You’re either lying or misinformed.

          • hyperzombie

            Nope, GMO cotton is wildly popular in India. 98% over 7 million farmers grow it.

        • TsuDhoNimh

          “using a bacteria or virus to convey bt toxin (round up ready) into the
          plant nucleus whereby it starts making is own bt toxin to repel pests”

          That is wrong in so many ways … I don’t know where to start to explain to you how it really works.

        • tsyganka

          TRUTH. Thank you.

      • TheLight

        GMO’s ARE an ingredient. How dumb people like you are living with your head in the sand. GMO corn and non-GMO corn are not the same thing. The GMO corn has genes added to the DNA sequence that a company can patent so they can control the market for corn by charging a technology fee to the farmers who plant it. Farmers are not allowed to save seed for the next years crop, they have to buy it year after year from the company that makes it guaranteeing their profits forever. Wake up and pull your head out of the hole it’s in.

        • hyperzombie

          Plant patents have been around since 1930 and all plant breeding changes the genome, that is the whole point. There are plenty of Non GMOs that you have to pay a tech fee for as well.

          “Farmers are not allowed to save seed for the next years crop”

          Farmers don’t save seed anyway, This is only an issue to city folks that know nothing about modern farming.

          • okaaay

            .

          • hyperzombie

            “And I’m all for labeling the particular trait,”

            So you want to label all the Non GMOs that have the same traits? There are Non GMO herbicide resistant crops, and insect resistant crops as well.
            Plus the insecticide (Bt) that causes some caterpillars and grubs stomachs to burst is also Organic farmings number one insecticde, do you want Organic crops that are treated with the same thing to be labeled as well?

          • okaaay

            .

          • Bradford

            NAME ONE “Non GMO” that requires a “tech fee”….
            Confusion by psychobabble & gobbledygook, – that’s what YOU are!

          • hyperzombie

            All Clearfield crops,most new fruit varieties, Nexera canola, even little old Burpee sells patent protected crops.

            http://www.burpee.com/vegetables/corn/corn-amaize-hybrid-prod003386.html

          • Bradford

            And WHICH ONE requires that “tech fee”, Zig-Zag brain?
            You’re rockin’ the Ozzie Osborns style, bro!

          • hyperzombie

            All of them. Why do you think Amaize corn is 2x more than non patented corn?
            You really should learn a bit more about Agriculture before you comment on it.

      • Helmut Klauer

        You claim you react to “chemicals used in organic farming” ???? Wut?
        True Organic farming USES NO CHEMICALS – and I have been directly involved in organic farming for 30 years! The USDA Certified Organically Grown label is voluntary and widespread. The USDA definition of organic prohibits GMO seeds & starts. The second sentence of your comment, Pat_Creighton, makes no sense, when put together with your third sentence.

        • hyperzombie

          “True Organic farming USES NO CHEMICALS”

          LOL, is bold faced lying part of the Organic system? Wow, no chemicals is such a lie.

          • Bradford

            Again, Klaatu, he clearly means “synthetic chemicals”….
            “hyperzombie” = non-human Borg

          • hyperzombie

            Does he?

        • JoeFarmer

          “True Organic farming USES NO CHEMICALS…”

          Thanks for the laugh, “Helmut”!

          • Bradford

            There you go AGAIN, GMO G.I. Joe!….
            Why don’t you cut-n-paste an MSDS for us, dude?

          • JoeFarmer

            And once again you show you have no idea what you’re babbling about. Congrats, I guess.

        • TsuDhoNimh

          Chemicals allowed in Organic Farming

      • Lee Rowan

        I guess you don’t know that GMOs result in more pesticides being used on crops, and guess what, pesticides are poison. I’d love to know what “chemicals used in organic farming” you react to, Patty, because ORGANIC means that CHEMICALS ARE NOT USED. Does Monsanto pay you by the post, or by the hour?

        • hyperzombie

          ” Patty, because ORGANIC means that CHEMICALS ARE NOT USED”

          That is a total myth, Organic farming uses many chemicals. They are sourced from nature but they are chemicals nonetheless.

          • Bradford

            He clearly meant “synthetic chemicals”….
            Why are you being deliberately obtuse?

        • JoeFarmer

          “I guess you don’t know that GMOs result in more pesticides being used on crops…”

          I guess you’ve never been to a farm, Lee. But that’s O.K., every farmer like me makes sure 155 people like you that have no clue get to eat every day!

        • TsuDhoNimh

          ” ORGANIC means that CHEMICALS ARE NOT USED”

          That is wrong. There is a long list of chemicals that are acceptable for use in organic farming.

          www dot ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELPRDC5096045

          Editing to preserve link

          • Bradford

            Interesting choice of topics you comment on. – COINTELPRO, much?

      • Blanche Marie Couture

        Pat, organic farming does not use pesticides and certainly no chemicals. I do organic farming and there is absolutely no CHEMICALS. I do react and have allergic reactions to all process foods. Why change that? I tell you why, because the food today about 80% is totally unsafe to consume.

      • James Long

        HAHA! Misinformed on so many points it’s hard to know where to begin.

        My advice is to actually read what GMO’s are. They are NOT an agricultural process. They are a laboratory process – which could never, ever occur in Nature.

        The proof of the safety of GMO’s was left to the company that developed them – an obvious conflict of interest – with no oversight. By the way, this is not a ban – it is the right to know what is in our food.

        It is ironic that you say organic farming uses chemicals. They CAN’T use chemicals, if they did, they could no longer be called organic – by definition: (please pay special attention to “Synthetic pesticides and chemical fertilizers are not allowed”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_food

        • Jason

          You seem to be a little misinformed. Genetic modification occurs in nature all the time..it’s called horizontal gene transfer. In fact, many of the current gmo crops were made using a bacteria’s natural ability to transfer its genes to the host plant.

          And there is substantial oversight on gmo testing. The FDA, EPA and USDA set all the guidelines and requirements and review the safety testing data before approving these crops.

          As for organic farming, they certainly do use pesticides. Just as you stated, they can’t use synthetic inputs, but they can use organic ones. All you need to is look at the list of pesticides approved for organic production and you’ll see.

          • Bradford

            Yup. We can TRUST EVERYTHING both the FedGov, *AND* YOU SAY….

          • Jason

            You don’t have to trust me if you don’t want to. These facts are easily confirmed by anyone with an internet connection.

      • Cheryl Greninger

        Who are you, a shill for Monsanto??? What crap!!

      • Dale Elford

        Pat, your rubbish is everywhere. I admire your determination to be the know it all.

      • Bradford

        I’m calling you out for BS! NAME *WHICH* “chemicals used in organic AG” you “react” to! And, you’re WRONG about GMO’s. They are a LABORATORY Process! AND an INGREDIENT! And, NOBODY is talking about the $BIG$ behind GMO’s.
        We CAN have industrial-scale agriculture. Most of what the food industry says about GMO’s are self-serving LIES, and DISTORTIONS. Campbells admits that, by pulling out of the BOGUS GMO / QR code scheme, and SCAM! It’s called “green-washing”, or, covering up bad science with good PR. Do they *pay*you* to write the garbage you wrote here? Or are you simply delusionally confused?
        (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

        • Organic foods are a multi billion dollar industry. Why doesn’t that bother you?

      • Bradford

        FSMPastapharian = redirects to CAMPBELLS….
        PAID SHILL & TROLL ALERT!

        • @mod please remove these repeated spam posts making bogus accusations. Thank you.

      • tsyganka

        1) A GMO is a genetically modified organism which certainly CAN be an ingredient and IS an ingredient in most of our packaged foods and baking mixes. GMOs are not made by normal cross-breeding or grafting, but by inserting DNA of a species into a totally foreign species – like the first trial product: a tomato that contained a fish gene.

        2) Chemicals are not used in organic farming. They are used in conventional farming (which uses pesticides, herbicides, fungicides) and in GMO farming, which is generally monoculture and sprayed with Roundup or Enlist Duo, known to be cancer causers.

        3) The onus should be on the GMO product seller, not the organic produce seller. Organic doesn’t hurt people; GMO and its associated biocides Do hurt people. Moreover, not all organic products are so labeled, and USDA & FDA have been dumbing down the “natural” and “organic” labels. We need definitive labels.

    • Ecila

      I was about to write the same assertions…so I say Amen!

  • BluebirdofUnhappiness

    Marketing over science. As it ever was. I care that my food is nutritious, tastes good and is safe (microbiologically and chemically). I also care if it’s economical. I absolutely do not care whether it contains GMOs, except that non-GMO products are more expensive and of no benefit (except in terms of marketing and company profitability) so I tend to avoid purchasing them.

    • Laurie Avenell Olson

      Wow, then you need to do a taste test. Real none GE food tastes much, much better than GE food. That was one of the several reasons the “Flavor Saver” tomato went away. They were icky. They also made people sick. Just because it doesn’t send you to the hospital the moment it crosses your lips, doesn’t mean that it isn’t hurting your body. Many more people are allergic to many more foods than they were 20 years ago. I have never seen so many sick people as I have in the last several years and this was the truth even before the Fukushima disaster.

      • BluebirdofUnhappiness

        Wow, then you need to stop believing every anti-GMO conspiracy theory you read. No GMO tomato ever made anyone sick. The Flavr Savr didn’t taste as good as a tomato grown for flavor because they modified a tomato that didn’t have a superior flavor to begin with. You explain exactly how sugar from a GMO sugar beet tastes different from sugar from a non-GMO beet. I also haven’t heard any complaints about the flavor of GMO papayas–and again, lets not confuse varietal differences wth GM’ing. Google American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology Increasing Rates of Allergies and Asthma and ask why they haven’t listed GMOs as a possible cause. (Hint: There’s no scientific and/or medical reason to do so.)

      • ahusain

        I have seen many of your comments – so thought I would respond to one of them. I am neither against or “for” GMO’s although I am highly fortunate to have an income that supports buying organic produce if we so choose. The one thing that is bothering me about your responses is this one thing you said – which I think represents the “anti-GMO” group as a whole. You stated:

        “I’ve spent 6 years studying this topic and my family and I opted out early on. In the past 6 years I haven’t purchased one can of Campbell’s soup, but today, if I can find it locally I will purchase several cans for local food banks.”

        After posting multiple times about how GMO foods are detrimental to health. Are the less fortunate less worthy to you?

        You people complain so much about GMO’s but have absolutely no solutions to solve world hunger – and then some (like yourself) feel that what you view as “inferior” foods are fine for consumption by the less fortunate – but not for “your family”.

        Seems kinda pompous and ridiculous to me.

        • Laurie Avenell Olson

          Well, we don’t generally eat things out of cans, and usually make our own, it is very hard to share that way. I wouldn’t give GE foods to anyone. I have devoted the last 6 years to talking to as many people as I can about this. You don’t know me and you don’t know what I have done and what I haven’t done. It is not doing anyone any favors if the food we send to countries is tainted with poison. Glyphosate is poison. It is ruining the health of the people of this country and many others. There are many people working on solutions to hunger. Monsanto and the other chemical companies are not the ones with the answers that will help. They are more concerned about their bottom line. Check out what the Green Bronx Machine is doing and Ron Finley in the LA area. No one can do everything but everyone can do something. I do what I can, where I can. What about you?

  • wdavidrice

    Thank you for putting your customers first.

    • Pat_Creighton

      How are they doing that? All they are doing is playing up to the political pressure put on by special interest groups promoting the use of organic produce with all their more potent chemical sprays. I much prefer to avoid organic ingredients, thank you.

      • Sally Blackmore

        I cannot, and I repeat, cannot believe you just said that. Your poor family.

      • ruth ferguson

        Are you crazy, Pat Creighton? Just curious.

        • blackjackbouvier

          Methinks he might be paid.

  • mem_somerville

    I can’t wait to see how this plays out. But I appreciate that you put the facts out–that you put to rest the lie that labeling doesn’t cost anything in your statement to the NYT:

    Ms. Morrison said that complying with Vermont’s law was expensive….

    And I’m glad you are standing firm on the safety and usefulness of GMOs.

  • Jason

    And people wonder how adding this label might cause confusion:

    However, this legislation does not include products with meat or poultry, because they are regulated by United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Under Vermont law, SpaghettiO’s original variety, guided by the FDA, will be labeled for the presence of GMOs, but SpaghettiO’s meatballs, guided by the USDA, will not. Yet these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf, which is bound to create consumer confusion.

    I support Campbell’s decision to label their products. If they feel that’s the best way to market to their customers, then let them do so. But I don’t support forcing everyone else to do it the same way, just because its the way they feel it should be done.

    It’ll be interesting to see what comes of this.

    • mem_somerville

      Agree, the VT legislation reflects that it was written by a clueless flying yogi. It’s really terrible, and I’m glad this highlights how stupid it it is.

      But I’m with you on the mandatory thing too–Campbell is clearly showing it’s not necessary to mandate it. And if companies don’t want the expense for it, they shouldn’t have to go there.

      • Jason

        This is just my initial reaction, but their jumping behind the mandatory labeling push feels like them trying to mitigate what ever risk they took by adding the labels to their own foods.

        In other words… the risk of activism and misinformation directed at their products is likely a lot less if everyone else has to do it too. But they still get the good will of “going first”.

        • mem_somerville

          I think you nailed it. As of now, they are sitting ducks for the kind of activist extortion that other companies got–even after they offered a GMO-free product. Cheerios, Similac, same story.

          With the labels, now activists will laser-focus on them demanding that they change the products to eliminate GMOs or they’ll keep shouting. But if everyone has labels, it will diffuse the activists.

      • Just Ice

        Why would expense be an issue here moreso than anywhere else? Labels are forever changing. The consumer isn’t fooled by that.

      • Hortense DeBunkerman

        And what are your credentials?

    • Just Ice

      I would imagine others will hop on board when they see Campbell’s sales increase, and rest assured they will go up. After all, in the end it’s all about profit, and a company that listens to consumers will leap ahead. Campbell’s will be on top if they decide to use non gm ingredients because they are first to label and we will reward them in turn.

      • Jason

        Great! If their sales go up and others want to follow suit, let them. What’s your point?

        • Just Ice

          You said it’ll be interesting to see what comes of this. I said what I thought would come of it. The point is obvious.

          • Jason

            The interest was about their joining the mandatory push. Not about their decision to label.

            I’d be shocked to see their sales jump however. Cheerios & Grape-Nuts went gmo free and advertised such and saw no difference at all. Now Campbell’s will see an increase just for labelling that they use gmo ingredients? Most already knew that.

            We’ll see, I guess. But it seems unlikely to me. Look at it this way…. If Campbell’s thinks it’s such a competitive advantage, why would they want to force their competitors to have the same advantage?

          • Just Ice

            Marketing. They will come out looking like the good guy I guess, but I really don’t know. A lot more hype over labeling than Cheerios and Grape-Nuts going gmo free. At the time they got a good pat on the back but of course it died out. Labeling issue is ongoing and you know Campbell’s will get a lot of cover. Constantly fresh on peoples minds. With corporations profit is the driving force. It’s everything.

          • Jason

            If you say so… Personally, it already feels like it’s dying out. My guess is this is a total non-issue.

          • JoeFarmer

            “… but I really don’t know.”

            That disclaimer should precede all of your comments!

          • Just Ice

            Whatever Joe, peaceful day to you.

    • Shredder

      Campbell’s sensibly wants to avoid a patchwork of different rules in different states, and realizes that mandated labeling at the federal level is inevitable because people have a fundamental right to know what’s in their food, regardless of whether they are trying to eat healthy ingredients or avoid environmentally harmful production processes. This is a sound business decision, and one that should and will be repeated by the rest of the US food suppliers sooner or later, because at a fundamental level GMOs are a scam.

      • Jason

        You seem to be jumping to conclusions. I agree that they want to avoid a patchwork. They stated that in their press release.

        But, to say that nationwide, mandatory gmo labeling is inevitable it a gross overstatement. It seems FAR closer to being a nationwide voluntary standard than the other way around. Considering there isn’t even a mandatory labeling proposal on the table right now yet there is a voluntary one that only needs the Senate’s approval to become law.

        And who’s saying anything about “knowing what’s in their food” or “avoiding environmentally harmful..blah, blah blah…”. The proposed labeling laws achieve none of those things.

        First, we’re not talking about “whats in your food”. We’re talking about how the ingredients in your food were produced. And unless you can demonstrate that there is some substantial health, safety or nutritional difference between production methods, then there is no basis for the government to mandate this speech. The individual’s first amendment rights supersede.

        Second, by virtually EVERY assessment, the adoption of genetically engineered seeds has been beneficial to the environment. But regardless of whether it is or isn’t… how is it the government’s right to mandate that information just so that you can exercise your ideological viewpoints?

        GMOs are a scam??? OK.. you’re clearly not thinking about this rationally, so.. thanks for your input.

  • kenroseboro

    Thank you Campbell’s for your commitment to greater consumer transparency and for labeling products containing GMOs.

    • Pat_Creighton

      Hah! Consumer transparency? Clearly you don’t understand the term, “GMO.” It is an agricultural process, not an ingredient. Science is finding that some of our food ingredients were genetically engineered 8000 years ago, and longer, now that they understand the process. Are you suggesting you don’t want to eat sweet potatoes? Are you preferring to go back to having unweaned calves slaughtered for the rennet used to make cheese? Are you against medical improvements with items such as insulin?

      • Parkite2

        Clearly you are drinking the Kool-Aid. Read this:http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/

      • kenroseboro

        Genetic engineering is a radically different technology than conventional plant breeding. People weren’t blasting foreign genes into the DNA of food crops with gene guns 8000 years ago.

        • Karen Scribner

          Thank you Ken. How can you remain so calm in the midst of all this misinformation?

      • Sally Blackmore

        Are you a paid spokesperson for Monsanto? You sound like one. While I applaud Campbells for making this choice, they are wrong about them being safe. But that aside, YOU clearly don’t understand. Hybridizing and genetically modifying a plant to withstand herbicides (glyphosate and 2-4D) and producing it’s own pesticide are two COMPLETELY different things. And yes — organic farmers use the BT toxin ON the plants. The toxin degrades in the sunlight. No so when it is IN the plant. And using the insulin comment — pure shill behavior.

      • Karen Scribner

        Modern diet and environment is causing the diabetes that needs the insulin.

      • TZ

        Nope! You are referring to the sweet potato! Ahh, how cute, you have no idea what a GMO is.

        “Transgenic organism: An organism resulting from the insertion of genetic material from another organism using recombinant DNA techniques.”

        “Recombinant DNA technology: Procedures used to join together DNA segments in a cell-free system (e.g. in a test tube outside living cells or organisms). Under appropriate conditions, a recombinant DNA molecule can be introduced into a cell and copy itself (replicate), either as an independent entity (autonomously) or as an integral part of a cellular chromosome.” http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=biotech_glossary.html

        Notice that the definition of transgenic is that recombinant DNA techniques were used, and recombinant DNA techniques by very definition is that a cell-free system was used. So by very definition this sweet potato is not a GMO.

      • Lee Rowan

        How much is Monsanto paying you, troll?

      • Bradford

        “engineering” *itself* didn’t exist “8,000 years ago”….
        “laboratory agriculture” is like “military intelligence”….it’s an OXYMORON.
        GET A CLUE, MORAN!…..

  • Joe Finnegan

    Thank you for the Leadership. It is very refreshing to see and I support it 100%.

  • mikerbiker

    I support educational efforts to explain the science of genetic engineering, as you appear to be doing. But giving into the food terrorists by supporting their agenda of mandatory labeling is a terrible decision.

    Every food is genetically modified- there’s no reason to scare the public by forcing the selective labeling some of these foods.

    • Parkite2

      Every food is NOT Genetically Engineered. Learn the difference between GE/GMO and hybridization. Also read: http://foodrevolution.org/blog/former-pro-gmo-scientist/

    • Sally Blackmore

      Food terrorists? You have got to be kidding me. Because we are trying to keep a safe, sustainable, diversified food supply — we are terrorists? You should be thanking your lucky stars there are people out there fighting for your right to choose.

    • Laurie Avenell Olson

      We are not going to change all our GMO lingo just because the industry plays their shell-game with words. There is a vast difference between what has been going on for ages and what has been happening in the past 20 years. Look at the amount of illness in the USA compared to other countries and then tell me there are “no known ill effects” We know there are ill effects as the vast majority of those fighting for labeling have experienced it first hand or lost loved ones. Grow a heart. Maybe it doesn’t affect you now, but when it does, we will have done the work so you can make better choices and actually have a future.

  • SirDancelot

    I support looking beyond the “tobacco science” of much of the GMO “information.” Check out http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/GMO-Myths-and-Truths-edition2.pdf for example. Other resources (including a link to the 1st edition of the above) are listed at http://www.labelgmos.org/resources.

    • SirDancelot

      This information on GMO Myths is also available as a web document at http://gmomythsandtruths.earthopensource.org/. I think this is much easier than the pdf to skim and/or read.

      Many of the myths posted here and the several in Campbell’s statement above (third to last paragraph) are well documented as such in the above document.

      • LJE01

        Great links. Best way to respond to the ignorance and misinformation on GMO’s being posted here – much of it by paid Monsanto shills no doubt.

  • John Backstrom

    Really absurd. If you want to put labels on your cans to say that it doesn’t contain GMO’s, fine. It’s absolutely meaningless fear-mongering, but whatever slurps your noodle. Supporting mandatory labeling however, is beyond pandering to the lowest common denominator.

    • Laurie Avenell Olson

      I’ve spent 6 years studying this topic and my family and I opted out early on. In the past 6 years I haven’t purchased one can of Campbell’s soup, but today, if I can find it locally I will purchase several cans for local food banks. I suggest others do the same. You sir can continue not to care, but I suggest you watch the GMO Global Alert on YouTube and find out more. We are just at the beginning of an epidemic and our children are paying the price for our lack of attention to this matter. It has been 20 years too long. I wish I’d known 20 years ago what I know today.

      • TZ

        They do have certified organic options now too! 🙂

    • Debbie Owen

      It’s really sad to be against transparency in labeling, everyone should have the freedom to know what’s in their food so they can decide for themselves. Campbell’s is taking a step in the right direction by giving their customers that choice.

    • Hortense DeBunkerman

      Fear has nothing to do with it. Transparency and the truth does. Get with the program. Your family will thank you.

  • James King

    I am 100% in favor of the non patented use of GMOs in plants that can be grown more productively and more competitively. The monopoly and methods used by Monsanto in patenting their GMOs is wrong. I wish more people understood GMO crops, but most people do not care to study the science. Yeah Campbell’s Soup. Too bad it will cause many label readers to avoid their labeled product for one with out the label.

    • Jason

      Why are seed patents wrong? Patents help farmers by giving companies an incentive to spend their money on rthe searching, developing, testing and growing new and better performing products. Without the guarantee of patent protection, why would anyone invest the money?

    • mikerbiker

      Plant patents have been around since 1930, long before genetic engineering. Are you also against the patenting of products like cotton candy grapes, which were created using breeding?

      When it costs millions of dollars to produce the first commercial seed of a new crop variety but pennies to make the second seed, it becomes important that a company have some assurance that they can get a return on their research and development expenses.

      Patents allow companies to sue someone who steals their inventions, but only for a limited time. The quid pro quo of the patent system is that the invention enters the public domain eventually, as several Monsanto products already have.

    • Pat_Creighton

      You are misinformed, James, if you think Monsanto patents anything genetically modified. However, Proctor & Gamble DID patent glyphosate’s cancer prevention and treatment capabilities. http://www.google.com/patents/US5656615

    • hyperzombie

      “100% in favor of the non patented use of GMOs”

      Well I am glad that you support Roundup ready soy and canola, patents expired.
      No seed Co is even close to a Monopoly.

    • 1rityls

      FYI, non-GMO varieties are patented also. The monopolies are an unfortunate by-product of heavy regulation of GMO’s. Essentially, only the large corporations can afford to put out a product, despite the fact that many of the brightest scientists with the smartest ideas are working in the public sector, in universities. These scientists would happily develop varieties if they could, but again, they cannot afford to go through the regulatory process. Thus, at the moment they basically just develop non-GMO varieties that require less regulation, and instead license out or collaborate with companies when they want to see something using biotech go to market. While I am not suggesting that GMO’s not be regulated, something needs to change. You can have heavy regulation, but that results in monopolies. As they say, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

  • Aaron Korkegian

    I disagree with federal mandatory labeling of GMOs. Genetic engineering is just a tool and labeling things that have ingredients in them that were in part made in part utilizing genetic engineering makes about as much sense as labeling things that have ingredients in them that were made in part utilizing hammers. It doesn’t tell you anything meaning about its safety or anything really.

    I wrote up my views on this here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2015/12/22/you-cant-judge-a-product-by-a-gmo-label/

  • Pat_Creighton

    I need to know what chemicals were used when spraying was done on your ingredients. That requires knowledge of organic produce because that is the method used when we have health concerns. Giving me an agricultural process does absolutely nothing to tell me what is or isn’t in the can.

  • I’m glad you acknowledge the safety of “gmo” foods but unless you are more out front about that the effect of your action will be to even further suppress the use of that technology

  • James King

    A question as to why Monsanto should not be allowed to patent the GMOs that they create is because of a naturally known occurence that is known as cross pollination. The wind has carried pollen from a GMO field of soybeans which are patented and a royality must be paid by the grower to Monsanto. The neighboring farmer grew soybeans and saved some seed from his crop for many years and never bought Monsanto GMO soybeans. Monsanto sued the farmer because his soybeans showed that they contained Monsanto GMO genetics. The farmer lost his decade long court battle with Monsanto who won because it was proved the farmer was raising soybeans that carried the Monsanto GMO soybean genetics. Corn is another huge Monsanto GMO. Corn is also cross pollinated by the wind. Any farmer growing non GMO corn anywhere upwind of Monsanto GMO corn will be growing corn that may be pollinated by Monsanto GMO corn. Monsanto will want their royalty from every farm that grows Monsanto’s patented GMOs no matter how the corn was grown. If Monsanto finds that a farmer is growing corn that has any of its patented genetics for any reason and is not paying the royalty, it will sue in court and now has a history of winning. Monsanto GMO corn will not die from the herbicide known commonly as round up. This GMO corn can produce higher yields for farmers than any non GMO corn because it allows the farmer to very cost effectively spray his corn crop with round up and effectively eliminate every other kind of plant in his field that would have competed for nutrients with his corn crop. GMO corn is wonderful for larger yields and farmers know it and will pay Monsanto’s price for the GMO corn because the increased cost of the Monsanto GMO seed is negligible in return for the much larger yields at the end of the season. Farmers do not save seed from their corn crops because nearly all corn raised in our country is a hybrid which makes the first generation very vigorous and strong. The second generation of corn grown from hybrid seeds will lack the vigor and productivity that is seen in 1st generation hybrid seeds. Cross pollination will carry the GMO genetics to any down wind corn crops. Monsanto is extremely powerful and influential in our government and judicial system. It has huge financial resources and will use them effectively. Yeah for Campbell’s Soup for labeling GMO ingredients voluntarily!

    • mikerbiker

      FYI: That actually didn’t happen- One guy stole the seed and falsely claimed it blew over into his field, so that’s how that myth got started http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/pages/gm-seed-accidentally-in-farmers-fields.aspx

      • dcohn

        And you believe it only happened one time and that it never occurred from the wind. There used to be people that only managed seeds for the farmers. No more. They are all out of business. Stop reading from the source of the poison.

        • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

          Not to mention Monsanto also sued Maui county to overturn our vote for Independent tests here at GMO ground zero, a vote that they couldn’t buy with over $8 million, they still lost to only 65k and the truth.

      • Bradford

        Dude, if you were any more transparently obvious, you’d be see-through window glass…..

  • okaaay

    thank you for labeling dangerous GMOs
    http://www.gmoevidence.com/

  • Pamela Calabrese

    Good for you Campbell’s! Myself and many others support your decision. For those who think it is fear mongering, you are wrong! People have a right to know what they are putting in their bodies. Some of us take care of ourselves by exercising and watching what we eat and drink. That’s why we are healthy and medication free! We choose to be accountable for our health instead of playing victim! Then counting on a doctor fixing everything with prescribed meds. & surgery and blaming it on our genetics. Most sickness and disease can be prevented including cancer!!

    • Amanda Castle

      I could not afree with youmore!

    • Blanche Marie Couture

      Don’t be so elated….there is lots more behind all this, it does not smell too kosher.

      • Pamela Calabrese

        Profits are behind it, it makes sense financially for them. i know what the real motive is their bottom line.

        • Blanche Marie Couture

          Pamela, thank you for your reply…if I were you I would be very careful about their products. They may remove few of their carcinogen but it does not mean that most of the ingredients is safe to ingest because of the meat and the veges they use are probably infected with pesticides and insecticides.

          • Pamela Calabrese

            Thanks for the heads up, I don’t eat their food. I eat fresh whole foods/ organic, grass feed beef etc.

          • Blanche Marie Couture

            You are very wise and have a great day Pamela!

          • And the BPA (Bisphenol A) that is in the lining of the can.

    • tsyganka

      I support Campbell’s decision except for one thing – the use of the so-called SmartLabel (the QR matrix code). The QR code (which requires that we buy a costly smartphone with a scanning app) is being floated by the USDA and Sen. Stabenow to MANDATE that all GMO labeling be VOLUNTARY. I.e., Vermont’s labeling law would be gone, and so forever would be any State’s right to mandate GMO labeling,

      Somewhat cynically (as is my wont; heh), I add that this is class war. Only the rich can afford a smartphone to learn which foods are safe and which aren’t. The rest of us are forced to take our chances, particularly the 32% of us (like me) who don’t even own a cellphone, let alone an expensive smartphone.

  • Robert Clemons

    Good Job:> Proud of Campbell’s Soup

  • Chet Field

    Well Campbells, your caving to a small group who refuse to accept that GM products have proven safe, in wide use since the mid-90s just cost you our business. We will NOT purchase your products again.

    Non-GM products already have their “certified organic” label so customers have that choice. We don’t need yet another label mandate which will increase food costs for the average consumer. We will buy your competitors’ products, companies who refuse to cave to activists who aren’t content with their own “certified organic” products, but insist on making the food of others more expensive.

    • Debbie Owen

      You think that it is just a “small group” that want the freedom to make an informed choice? Nope, sorry but you are wrong. Maybe you don’t care if others decide for you what you are allowed to know and not know about your food, but I believe most consumers would rather decide for themselves. Campbell’s isn’t afraid to label GMOs, why are you so afraid of a label?

  • A Scientific Consumer

    It is very sad to see you cave in to the mis-informed who think there is actually any reason to be concerned about GMOs. There is no credible evidence which would indicate that a food derived from a GMO is any less safe than a non-GMO variety. Therefore, there should be nothing that needs to be labeled. This entire issue is ridiculous and is a huge waste of everyone’s time. Your decision to support mandatory labeling of GMOs has nothing to do with science and is simply a marketing ploy to fool people into thinking your products are somehow better. If Campbell Soup Company wants to play this marketing game about the need for transparency, you can already label your products if you want. However, there is no justification for you to support something like this which would force all companies to do something so stupid if they don’t want to play this game. I would agree that we cannot let the states go out and do different things in every state. That really makes no sense and we do need some federal control of this issue but it should be around making it clear that mandatory labeling cannot be required by a state and to set some type of clear standard for how GMO and non-GMO labeling should be done if a company voluntarily decides they want to play the game. Consumers need to wake up and move on to something that might actually matter. This issue is completely unrelated to anything to do with health and safety and has become simply a political football to make the food critics feel like they are important people. In fact, they do nothing but fool the mainstream consumer into thinking there is some type of issue here when science has clearly shown there is none! I am really sad to see Campbell Soup Company take this position and I will avoid the use of your products as much as possible in the future and work to convince everyone I know to do the same since you clearly are just playing the game.

    • Debbie Owen

      Apparently you don’t mind if others decide for you what you are allowed to know and what you aren’t allowed to know about your food. What is very sad is when consumers aren’t given an informed choice, but Campbell’s is now for transparency in labeling and that is a step in the right direction. Everyone should have that freedom of an informed choice so they can decide for themselves.

    • Shredder

      92% of US consumers want GMOs labeled.

  • Mike D

    Well if GMO food is so very safe why then have mice and rats feed in scientific studies by independent labs been so full of tumors, shorter life span, and major problems with fertility and birth? Furthermore, their offspring have had more then average birth defects! So is it possible that not all GMO food causes this, I don’t think the consumer wants to take that chance. Furthermore, why have large orders of corn and wheat crops been cancelled by foreign countries—because they are GMO! I APPLAUD CAMPBELL’S CEO!!!!!!!!!

  • Sue Smith

    Makes me a happy camper !! So happy to know our fiuture generations will be able to enjoy the delicious and “Good for you” Camplbells products !!!

  • Jen Morris

    No doubt your bottom line figured out most of us do not want to eat gmo’s. That being said, it is a good decision. I myself will not trust to buy your product until I see the butterfly symbol that it has been verified by the NonGMOProject

  • Laurie Avenell Olson

    Thank you for this, even though I don’t agree with the third paragraph up from the bottom beginning “I want to stress…” The scientific studies that showed little or no harm were too short. The only long term studies done have shown harm. If you haven’t yet, please watch “GMO Global Alert” and attend the public meeting in San Diego the first weekend in March of this year so you can hear it from the scientist who led the team. http://environmentalhealthsymposium.com/publicevent/ Really, you should be there, as should anyone who cares about the food we eat.

    Here is the link to the Global Alert: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Njd0RugGjAg

  • Loren Morris

    Thank you Campbell’s. I don’t use your products (or any processed foods), but it is so nice of you to see that this is needed.

  • Alberto Coin

    I’m sure this is because of lost market share due to an antiquated low quality product.

  • Starchaser

    Thank you Campbell’s! We prefer Certified Organic, but we will no longer shy away from your products with this announcement.

  • ruth ferguson

    Wow! This is giant progress for pro labeling laws!! So a huge thank you, Campbell company!!

  • ddduke

    Congratulations Campbell’s. Its a step in the right direction. Thank you. Consumers are becoming savvy about the other ingredients in processed foods, so you might want to look into your use of the glutamates and other chemical additives, too.

  • Angela Urquhart

    Finally, a reason to celebrate! I thank you Campbell’s for your decision and hope it applies to your products outside of the USA as well. It is a struggle not knowing what is in the food you choose to feed your family. It is nice to see a company that is confident and secure enough with their products to know that you can still sell a quality product while keeping consumers informed about what they are buying and eating. I look forward to reading the new labels when they come out and hope at least some of your products are or will be GMO free.

  • Cynthia Berg

    Thank you for making it this much easier to be informed about the food I buy and prepare for my family.

  • kjdulin

    This is shocking,, and very much appreciated. Thank YOU Campbells!

    • Bradford

      Yeah, but Campbells supports – or DID – that lame “QR” scheme / scam, which would only make the confusion & mis-, and dis-information WORSE!….
      (You’re on the right track, Campbells. Dump the GMA. You don’t need them. Please do your own IN-HOUSE propaganda. Don’t let others LIE for you, Campbells….

  • Emmi Buck

    ::Applause:: Thank you for telling us what you put in your food! GMO labeling is extremely important for food and all other products as well. On behalf of myself and Essential Oxygen Organic Brushing Rinse we say THANK YOU!
    —for non-GMO, vegan, organic oral health products visit: https://essentialoxygen.com/ —-

    • hahahaha! Pretends to care about GMO dangers with no data or support. Shills “health products” on third-party site! Perfect!

  • Sandye Gier

    i just want to know what’s in my food. you can decide to eat whatever you want but don’t sell me out by refusing to label it as gmo if it is. it’s just so simple. label it. then eat it or not and quit trying to convince me that gmo is okay. i don’t agree and i never will.

  • Lee Rowan

    I understand a lot of paid corporate trolls are decrying this decision. I think it’s a good first step. I’d also like to see the removal of high-fructose corn syrup.

  • disqus_Pg9FszksID

    Thank you! LABEL GMO’s….. thank you for caring about what goes into our food!

  • Donald Pickert

    Thank you Campbell’s for taking a major lead for transparency in food labeling. However, I know the real reason is profit. Of course a national labeling system would be preferred and less confusing than a state by state mandates, and less costly for producers. Makes sense. We the people have been asking of it long enough. But your support of the GMA’s Smartlabel program which requires a QR reader, usually a app on a smartphone, is NOT the answer to real labeling. What are you hiding? You see the tide turning in the food business, more people buying organic foods and REAL food, and you just don’t want to keep losing sales. If you really cared about labeling, you would have done this decades ago. Plus your statement that “the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence indicates that GMOs are safe”, is just wrong and we are not buying that any longer. Genetically engineered GMO foods are killing humans and the environment, and without any true long term studies of the human health impact and environmental impact of these “foods”, they should never be approved by the FDA or EPA. We are tired of being lied to and being the genie pigs of your (the food industry) experiments. But I do hope you lead the way with real true labeling for ALL food products.

  • Barbara E Thomas

    Thank you Campbell’s Soup! It is refreshing to see a huge company stepping up and doing the right thing. Also, it has been a pleasure to see your line of organic soups growing. Keep up the good work!

  • Shredder

    Thank you Campbell’s. 92% of Americans want GMOs labeled, and a patchwork of different state laws makes no sense. This is not just an issue about health; it is also about the environment. We want labels in part because we want products whose processes minimize harm to wildlife and agricultural resources, and contribute to local rural economies. Our current food system is unsustainable in large part because of the modern industrial model of big scale, monocrop agriculture of which GMOs and their accompanying pesticides are a central feature. Industrial agriculture operates out of a false premise: that we can separate ourselves from nature. The idea that consumers should not need to know about the *process* of food production (“like saying anything made with a screwdriver should be labeled”) is overwhelmingly offensive and totally unacceptable. That’s the kind of thinking that underlies corporate free trade agreements that seek to elevate corporate rights over all others and erode US sovereignty. Moreover, many consumers want products that are not organic but also not GMO. The only way to provide this is mandatory labeling of GMOs because otherwise there is no way of knowing whether food derived from a conventional crop contains GMOs or not. The argument that certified organic affords adequate choice belies the manifestly false assertion that GMOs can feed the world, since conventional non-GMO is a more affordable choice for lower income consumers than organic. The fact that the shills avoid this point and project their accusations of elitism onto supporters of organic tells you all you need to know. A label saying “contains GMOs” is anything but misleading; it is simply providing relevant information so that consumers can make informed choices in a free market. For these reasons, among many others, there is simply no other way forward than mandatory GMO labeling at the national level. Campbell’s deserves complete support for sorting out thesse issues successfully.

    • Jason

      “We want labels in part because we want products whose processes minimize harm to wildlife and agricultural resources, and contribute to local rural economies.”

      How does a GMO label help you do this?

      “The only way to provide this is mandatory labeling of GMOs because otherwise there is no way of knowing whether food derived from a conventional crop contains GMOs or not.”

      This is the ONLY way to achieve this? What about the various non-GMO labels that exist? Don’t these do this also?

      “The idea that consumers should not need to know about the *process* of food production (“like saying anything made with a screwdriver should be labeled”) is overwhelmingly offensive and totally unacceptable.

      Why? Why is that offensive and how is it inaccurate?

      • Bradford

        Talk about “single-topic” commenting!….R U A Paid SHILL, or COINTELPRO?….

        • Jason

          I counted 3 topics. You know what “single” means… right?

        • @mod repeated posts accusing others of being paid shills.

        • Do you need to be flagged and deleted for these comments, too?

        • @mod is there any part of the TOS being violated by constant posts making baseless accusations at others for being “paid shills?”
          Thanks!

  • Blanche Marie Couture

    I support the decision but I have doubts….if you care so much for your consumers, that should have been done at the very beginning like a 150 years ago. You food is so polluted that I won’t feed it to the pigs because they will get very sick. Think about all the death that your chemical soups caused for 150 years. Don’t tell me you care…my foot. All you care about is your damn profits.

  • Tom Johnston

    Great to hear!
    Once I see it in action I’ll be back as a consumer.

  • Robyn Latham

    Thank you Campbells for labeling GMOs. The rest of the world great countries are opposing the use of GMOs, and we would like America to do the same. LETS GO BACK TO NATURE. Wild foods with no pesticides is where we want to be. The real challenge of the world.

  • Kevin

    Good to see that Campbell Soups have decided to put the customer’s right to know what they are eating at the forefront by openly declaring GMO content in their products by clear consumer labelling. Well done.

  • Cheryl Greninger

    I support labeling GMO foods for many reasons. And, I am glad Campbell’s is on board with this. Those of us that are concerned about what we eat have the right to know. Thank you!

    • You also have the right to understand. I’d start with researching what GMO actually stands for, which foods you eat have been genetically modified, and what the effect has been on that food. Also, I’d avoid propaganda sites, or sites that have a clear agenda.

      • Vacunas Autismo

        “… I’d start with researching what GMO actually stands for, which foods you eat have been genetically modified, and what the effect has been on that food…”

        GMO food must be assessed in a case-by-case basis.

        Frequently, GMO means herbicide-resistant plants (corn, soy, sugar beet…), in this case GMO has the effect of bringing herbicide into your diet.

        Quite frequently, GMO means sterile plants, so the seed from this crop could not be used as seeds. in this case GMO has the effect of monopolizing food supply in a few hands.

        • JoeFarmer

          “Quite frequently, GMO means sterile plants.”

          Cite an example, Vacuous one!

          “Frequently, GMO means herbicide-resistant plants (corn, soy, sugar beet…), in this case GMO has the effect of bringing herbicide into your diet.”

          Care to explain how glyphosate is metabolized in glyphosate-tolerant traited (RoundUp Ready) crops? Or how glufosinate is metabolized in Liberty Link crops?

          Where did you copy this from? Sounds like drivel from some activist blog.

          • Vacunas Autismo

            Stick glyphosate UP YOURS, and good luck convincing people to accept your junk.

          • JoeFarmer

            You made the claim, “Quite frequently, GMO means sterile plants.”

            I asked you to provide one example. Your response leads me to believe that you’re unable to provide an example. I didn’t think you could.

          • Bradford

            OK, smart-azz, YOU provide ONE example of GMO crops that PRODUCE VIABLE SEEDS which CAN BE, and ARE, re-used the next year by farmers.
            ALL GMO seeds MUST be PURCHASED EACH year. I’m writing all caps so your squinty little eyes can see….

          • JoeFarmer

            Complete and utter nonsense. Did you just suffer a head injury or have you always been like this?

          • Jason

            YOU provide ONE example of GMO crops that PRODUCE VIABLE SEEDS which CAN BE, and ARE, re-used the next year by farmers.

            Roundup Ready Soybeans.

          • Dominick Dickerson

            Bradford the provision prohibiting seed saving is inorder to protect the intellectual property right on the variety. If the seeds themselves were sterile why would they make a provision against seed saving?

            I’m afraid you’ve been given some bad information.

          • Bradford

            That “protecting IP rights” argument is bogus & baseless….
            *IF* that’s all it was, WHY does Monsanto, et al, SELL NEW SEEDS to the farmers each year? And forbid farmers saving them for re-planting? The “protect IP” is a ruse, and Trojan Horse.
            And, “Roundup Ready” means Monsanto sells MORE Roundup, not less. That makes “good” business sense, if you’re an evil multi-national, which puts profits before people.
            The Bible clearly states: “LOVE of money is the ROOT of ALL EVIL”
            I am PRO-GOOD business, that earns a reasonable profit, and benefits ALL. Monsanto is driven by GREED, which only profits the 1%, at the expense of the 99%. THAT is why it’s wrong.
            We need DIVERSIFICATION, and NATURAL VARIETY, not the
            CONCENTRATION of SYNTHETICS & MONEY&POWER…..
            You can’t handle intelligent Republicrats, can you?….
            (Yes, Monsanto HAS sued farmers, and hurt many of them…..
            (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction

          • Bradford

            For one thing, glyphosate is NOT “metabolized” by plants….
            ….you’re pure psych-babble and gobbledygook, aincha’, SHILL?

      • Bradford

        @mod, my foot, punk! Here, let me make your day……
        YOU, kiddo, have posted well OVER 20 replies to MY posted replies, to
        YOUR propaganda. You claim to have a PhD, and are the “frequent target” of OTHERS who claim that you’re a “paid shill”….so this is a recurrent pattern of running to the MOMMY Site-admins, isn’t it? Well, ISN’T IT?……………
        You’re the POSTER BOY who cried “wolf!” for *that*….
        As for “avoid(ing) propaganda sites”, well, THAT’S WHAT THIS site is!….
        And, this story was on a Campbells’-linked site….
        I suspect that what happened, is that when some net-jockey in the Campbell’s
        IT or Marketing Depts., saw a sudden spike in comments from the link that WE followed to get here originally, it triggered human oversight in place of the bots and diagnostics that usually monitor the site in the month it’s been posted….
        THAT caused Campbells’ IT to shut down, or “clamp” the site traffic….
        THAT is why when I clicked on *one**certain* link in the notification, it re-
        directed to a Campbells’ “404 error page”…..as a SECURITY PRECAUTION!….against a possible hack, or DOS attack….
        So, for you to play the “MODERATOR-MOMMY!-MOMMY”, Help!, COME SAVE ME!, shows ME that YOU got your “PhD” piled higher and deeper from a Cracker-Jack box….
        Grow up, kiddo, will ya?
        This is more than you deserve, but it isn’t for YOU….
        It’s NOT ALWAYS *about* YOU, punk…..
        Wha cha got 2 say fer yerself, *NOW*, punk….????….
        (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction
        HAPPY LOSHAR TASHI DELEK HAPPY LOSHAR TASHI DELEK
        Happy Tibetan New Year…. Happy Tibetan New Year
        FREE TIBET FREE TIBET FREE TIBET FREE TIBET…..
        And *Molon**Labe*, to boot!……..GOD BLESS America!………………
        etc.,etc.,etc.,etc.,yada,yada,yada,blah,blah,blah

  • Scott Spell

    Thanks, Campbell’s, for doing the right thing.

  • If you think this is anything more than a marketing initiative, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Just ask Chipotle.

  • hyperzombie

    I don’t get it? Why would Campbell’s pander to a group that would never buy their food anyway? Wouldnt it be far better marketing to create a new label for these folks, Like “Old Time farmer Campbells, Free range, non GMO. fair trade soup” ? Over half the condensed soup that you sell now would just need a new label and the bonus is that you can sell the same thing to the food elitists for 4 x more money.. Win Win.

    • JoeFarmer

      They made a pretty big push recently for their line of organic soups. Must not have generated additional sales.

      • hyperzombie

        What? Do I live on Mars? Campbell’s sells Organic soup? I have never seen such a thing.
        Did they add additional kale and Quinoa, that always helps sales for hippie food.

        • JoeFarmer

          Ya, they made a media push recently with a pretty cynical TV ad of mom and dad heating up Campbell’s organic soup while their toddler was unattended and trying to eat a marker pen or a crayon, and then tried to close with the clumsy catchphrase: “Campbell’s: Real food for real life.”

          Major fail on all kinds of fronts.

          Maybe they’ll follow up with an ad showing the kid with a crayola stuck up his nose that says, “Campbell’s: Good dinner when you have to take your kid to the Emergency Room!”

          • hyperzombie

            I can’t believe so many fall for this whole “real food” marketing BS.
            I still think it is some kind of crazy unorganized religion, or how can you explain razor, TZ, Debbie and such. If they weren’t zealots the evidence would have mellowed them at least.

  • Chet Field

    Too bad you caved in. We won’t be buying Campbell products anymore.

  • Kānāwai Māmalahoe

    Mahalo Nui Loa Campbells, Ua Mau ke Ea o ka ‘Āina i ka Pono. I will give several cases of your Organic soups to our food pantry and I will start to eat for first time as well as put lots in my collection of caned goods.

    Ice cube is also impressed…I once bought some V8 splash with HFCS in it and haven’t bought anything from you in over two years because I felt tricked, glad to know you have organic V8…
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/447c57b82e2c3bcf2675a301c6a04f78fa6690ddfdc94d5fa7ae42018a01e60d.jpg

  • J Thomas

    I’m aware that corporations by law have to maximize return on investment and all that. So, the company’s labeling in one light is no more than good marketing. However, it is often the default position of a company to not do much of anything good, even when there is no cost issue.

    Campbell Soup is to be congratulated for taking the right step when no step at all would have been the order of the day most places.

  • Jennifer Berman Diaz

    Congrats Denise on giving consumers the right to know; however, There is no scientific consensus or proof that GMOs are safe.

  • Dale Sali

    Campbell’s says they know that GMO’s are safe. I say the only thing they know is what they have been told by their big brothers from Biotech.
    Campbell’s has never seen the science used for the approval of GMO’s, nor anyone else for that matter other than governments and the company applying for GRAS status of each GMO crop. Where is the democracy in that, no debate, no transparency.

    Safety is only one tiny issue around GMO’s. Biotech says that without mankind continuing alter nature to meet our needs rather than mankind adjusting our needs to become one with nature we will starve. This is a load of crap. The main use for GMO’s are feed, and fuel. North Americans eat by far the most meat per capita in the world (50% more than RDA) http://chartsbin.com/view/12730 and we all know that the SAD (Standard American Diet) is the worst diet on the planet. The rest of the world looks to this diet as what not to do. Health care costs are through the roof, the general population is unhealthy and we all know that diet plays a vital role in overall health. The American diet rich in GMO’s, processed pseudo food and animal proteins are killing you all.

    Not to mention how wildly unsustainable the whole farming system in America is and biotech is is promoting this farming system / diet throughout the world along with food processors like Campbell’s, claiming safety but not looking at all the other more important issues like environment, biodiversity, sustainability, animal welfare and the health of consumers.

    The Ogallala Aquifer is drying up mainly because of the unsustainable farming practices as promoted by Biotech. So we know that this aquifer is vital, just like we knew California was drying up long before any measures were taken. Go back to dryland farming in that region as once that aquifer is gone it will take 6000 years to replenish. There are already parts of the aquuifer that are drying up.

  • Phyllis Irene Hawley

    Right on. But what about BPA lining in the cans of tomato based products?

  • What about the BPA (Bisphenol A) that is in the lining of the soup cans?

  • DCDawg913

    The government should not (and may not legally be able to) provide a “right” to know to one group that at the same time infringes on the 1st amendment rights of companies NOT to speak about a non-health-related characteristic of their product. VOLUNTARY disclosure by Campbell’s or anyone else is perfectly respectable in trying to be honest and open with your customers, but supporting mandatory labeling is unethical, misled and adds to the hysteria instead of helping to educate consumers about what GMOs are/are not and to understand not all GMOs are, or should be treated as, the same. This equates to food “profiling”, if you ask me. BT corn, GM salmon, anti-browning apples, low acrylamide potatoes, etc., should not all be lumped together and viewed to be equally as risky to human health or the environment. In this regard, simply labeling something as “contains GMOs” really doesn’t convey any truly useful information to the consumer.

  • Give me labels. Campbell Soup asks for nationwide mandatory labels “Partially produced using genetic engineering” if that is the case. I would be soooo proud. Even better would be “Partially produced by Genetic Engineers”. We just need to make sure the organic folks are included and not allowed to be exempt. Mandatory means everyone because we want to know!

  • We need to be especially careful of foodborne illness. Most, if not all bacteria that cause foodborne illness begin with contact with animals. Thousands of folks are sickened each year. Your question may be, when did I have contact with bacteria from animals? Organic produce is grown soil using animal manure instead of NPK. Wash your fresh organic produce. Just label it “GROWN IN MANURE” so you remember to do just that.

  • @mod please remove these posts making such bogus accusations.

    • Bradford

      Dude, in the email notifications, when I click on “reply”, it redirects to a *404*error page, on CAMPBELLS’ website.
      U R BUSTED!…..
      And Campbells is ok w/me!……
      You’re TRYING to do the right thing, Campbells, but
      “FSMPpastafarian” needs a PINK SLIP!

      • You’re an idiot. I have nothing to do with Campbells. Get a life and learn how to navigate disqus before posting your bullshlt here.

      • @mod repeated spam posts from this child. Please remove. Thank you.

    • Bradford

      @mod: remove the FRAUD “FSMPastafarian….
      GO Campbells! I’m a HUNGRY, MAN!….LOL….
      (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr.

      • @mod more repeated spam posts from this child. Please remove.

    • Bradford

      You seen my LONG reply here, buy now, haven’t you?
      Do you have anything *INTELLIGENT* >and< *COHERENT* to say?

      • It was unreadable and beyond whiny. I didn’t bother. Hence the “tl;dr.”

      • Ironic for you to use the words intelligent and coherent after referring to one of your posts. Basically that long reply you wrote, which has now been deleted, was nothing but a whiny b*tch fest with you throwing a tantrum that I had your hissy fit posts deleted for crying about how I was a paid shill for Campbell’s – because you don’t understand how Disqus works. It was really quite embarrassing. You should be thanking me.

  • @mod please remove these posts making such bogus accusations. I have no association with any interested party.

  • Bradford

    Dear Campbells Soup Co.:
    People shouldn’t rag on Campbells. I truly believe that you want to do the right thing.
    But, between the GMA, and BigAG, and Pharma, etc., even this article / comment section
    has degenerated into a mass of chaotic, incoherent, propaganda, with rampant mis-, and dis-information, deliberate confusion, distortions, *LIES*, hype, etc.,
    My suggestion is to “CLOSE*COMMENTS”, and start a NEW article…..
    And fire your shills. It’s bad long-term PR, and bad marketing strategy.
    But the Campbells brand has both legs, and longevity.
    Please don’t further sully and cheapen it by this stupid pointless bickering
    Thank-you.
    (c)2016, Tom Clancy, Jr., *NON-fiction
    ps: Yes, I did flag my OWN comments, too….
    At what point does blatant propaganda become “inappropriate”?

  • Bradford

    Please, Campbells’, that “QR code” in lieu of proper labelling is a bad idea….
    The *deception*, *deceit*, and *dishonesty* behind it is blatant.
    NOTHING is stopping you from putting ANY QR code you want, on ANY label.
    Hopefully, only a small percentage of us are THAT stupid….
    When I remind you of the Biblical wisdom concerning “money being the root of all evil”,
    part of that is YOU DECEIVE YOURSELVES, **also**….
    There are much better ways to re-coup the foolish investments in GMO’s….
    Ramp up the plans for obsoleting them, and fast track divestment in GMO’s….
    That’s your best tactical strategy, and strategic tactic set….
    Thank-you, Campbells….
    MMmmm-M-M GOOD!

  • AgrSci1

    I will not be buying your product anymore. As a scientist, I will not support a company that promotes fear and ignorance. I am having difficulty expressing my thoughts without using profanity, so here is a quote that expresses my thoughts:

    “The problem with GMO labeling is that it implies to the public that such distinction has meaning when it does not. We do not label GMOs for the same reason we do not label milk from brown cows or wheat grown in Nebraska: all three are nutritionally and biologically irrelevant. Doing so would give credibility to the anti-scientific . . . hysteria”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/25/opinion/stop-making-us-guinea-pigs.html?_r=0
    If everyone followed your company’s example, we would still be living in caves.

  • I am glad they are taking the initiative to do this. I have Lyme and GMOs make me very ill.

  • I forgot to say thank, also thank you for making alternative organic soup.

  • Barbara Skreen

    If you would like to talk real food. I just realized there is high fructose corn syrup in your Tomato Soup and 12 gr of sugar in a 1/2 cup serving. Dang thank goodness for labeling! Thanks.

  • DG Green

    You say “Yet these two varieties sit next to each other on a store shelf, which is bound to create consumer confusion.” It’s simple – do more of what you are doing. ie, showing leadership by cutting through the nonsense. All you have to do is label them both and you will have eliminated consumer confusion.

  • tsyganka

    Campbell’s: If you believe in transparency, why are you using a QR (quick response) matrix code, the so-called SmartLabel, instead of an easily read label?

    The QR code forces us to buy a costly smartphone with an app (32% of us don’t have & can’t afford a cellphone, let alone a smartphone), learn how to use it, pick up & scan each product, be directed to a website, wade through the ads, locate the product description, & finally learn what could have been learned instantly from a normal label – whether the product was genetically engineered.

    The QR codes are currently proposed by Sen. Debbie Stabenow as a “compromise”to Sen. Pat Roberts’ new version of the so-called DARK (Deny Americans the Right to Know) Act. USDA is currently propagandizing QR codes. Singly or combined, these pieces of legislation preempt Vermont’s mandatory labeling law, forever deny States’ rights to mandate GMO labeling, & Mandate that all labeling be Voluntary. FDA has had a voluntary labeling program in place for ca. 14 years.

    We also have immense privacy concerns. Smartphones are known to be spying devices. Coupling their data with that gleaned from SmartLabeled purchases gives the government, marketers, and hackers even more information about our private, personal habits that are no one’s business but our own.

    Also, the ‘messy patchwork’ of labels mandated by States can be easily solved by a federal law that MANDATES labeling of GMO-containing and/or genetically engineered products with a highly visible, easy-to-read normal label. The federal law should equal or excel Vermont’s law. – Also, the ‘excessive cost’ of labeling has been repeatedly debunked.

    I’m VERY glad to hear that Campbell’s will no longer participate in the GMA’s attempts to derail State initiatives for mandatory GMO labeling. Thank you.

  • tsyganka

    I applaud Campbell fro stating it won’t take part in any more of the GMA’s campaigns to stop State initiatives for mandatory GMO labeling.

    I question Campbell’s use of the quick response (QR) matrix code, the so-called SmartLabel. This is not “transparency.” It complicates matters. It also forces us to buy a costly smartphone with an app in order to scan product QR matrix codes to learn about GMO content. We could learn that instantly from a normal label. Ca. 32% of us do not own and cannot afford a cellphone, let alone an expensive smartphone. Thus, the QR move is also class war – only the rich can afford a smartphone to tell them which products are safe.

    I also refer people to recently introduced legislation from Sen. Pat Roberts and Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Together or singly, these would preempt Vermont’s labeling law, forever forbid States to mandate GMO labeling, and forever forbid Mandatory GMO labeling at both State and federal levels. Stabenow’s “compromise” legislation would install the QR “SmartLabel” as the standard for labeling. I wonder how much the smartphone manufacturers paid her for that.

  • Will Wiegman

    Monsanto et.al. have deleted the Gene HMDB25030 from all their patented food and feed seeds and their patented vegetables foods and it is missing from nearly all processed food as well because it breaks down at 210F during the preparation of processed foods. It is the compound that represents most of the Immune System of Plants and the ONLY compound in foods that our Immune System incorporates directly into our Immune and Cellular Repair Systems to protect Neutrophils internally from the compounds produced to Kill Bacteria and Process Vaccines.
    It is responsible for the production, in Human and all mammalian metabolic systems, of a Single Antioxidant, Thiocyanate (HMDB01453), which is the ONLY antioxidant the Immune System can utilize inside of Neutrophils to Process Vaccines, Remove Heavy Metals (including viruses and even readioactive particles in the presence of Iodide), repair wounds, kill bacteria, rebuild muscles, repair aging host cells, kill cancer cells before they can divide out of control and much, much more.
    A normal Minimum Daily Requirement of HMDB35030 in the diet would be 1 mg. per 3 pounds of body weight from vegetables and food grains (non-GM, non-GMO and non-processed foods including soy baby formulas and baby food in jars have NONE now).
    This study done in the UK [ https://www.researchgate.net/p… ] clearly shows less than a few 100ths of what should be in the foods listed instead of the naturally occuring amounts which should fall between .1- 17 mg. per gram of food. Statistically, because of the wide variance of HMDB35030 content of the many foods tested, there should be a similar ratio in the processed foods but they are consistantly Completely Devoid of the Essential Nutrient across the variety spectrum.
    The undeniable importance of Thiocyanate in the Human Metabolic System is clearly detailed in this well done research: http://www.pnas.org/content/10…
    Where has all the HMDB35030 and the resulting Essential Metabolic Compound HMDB01453, Thiocyanate gone and why? The ‘why’ is Trillions of dollars in profit for the medical industry made in treating the symptoms of Thiocyanate Deficiency in Vaccine Induced Child Autism, Gulf War Syndrome, MS, Cystic Fibrosis, Fibromyaglia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s, and many other diseases with ‘unknown causes’ related to the dysfunctional neutraphils which self-destruct in the presence of a Thiocyanate Deficieny.
    Give us back our HMDB35030!

  • RonK

    Sorry Campbell. This is simply pandering to the uninformed public for marketing purposes and nothing else. It has nothing do do with you acting in the best interest of your customers and only in the best interest of your sales. Labelling GMO foods will tell consumers nothing about what is in that food. Simply identifying GMO ingredients sparks fear and misunderstanding as each GMO is different from the rest. So what does labelling accomplish other than scaring people?

    Shall we start insisting that Organic food is labelled to describe all the pesticides and other things they use (although they enjoy the public perception that they don’t, which is incorrect). I may now be less likely to buy Campbells products because you sold out for your own bottom line.

  • RonK

    The other thing people don’t realize is that evolution has had hundreds of millions of years for plants to develop their own toxins. When stressed, such as when being eaten by insects, the plants produce their own pesticides. And those truly are inside the plant tissue. Your organic produce can be full of them.

  • Chosenone

    Thank you for standing up with American’s who want healthy food for themselves and their families!
    I will start buying your non-gmo products.

  • artistinwax

    Thank you for understanding what most grocery store shoppers want when choosing food for their families. I will purchase your organic soups and am grateful that you will offer some choices with non-gmo certification. I understand that the Roberts-Stabenow Bill may even end non-GMO certification and hope that your company’s stand on labeling will encourage Congress to do the right thing and give The People of the United States what 63 other countries in the world have — GMO labeling. When the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes to a vote (which pre-empts labeling for GMOs) I hope your company will again step up and show the power of good corporations and their considerate attitudes towards their customers, which, after all, without us your companies would not exist. I think that corporations are forgetting this lately and would do well to take a page from your book. Thank you again.

  • Joe Consultant

    Thank you so much for standing up for what’s right in a world where corporations almost never do so!

  • Viola

    I will buy Campbell’s whenever I can as long as it does not contain GMOs. Thank you for standing up for the consumer. We do have a right to know what is in our food and to make our own decisions. I disagree about the safety of GMO foods and I side with the many countries who have banned GMOs!!