The Non-GMO Project:

Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat?

Preamble: The Organic Agriculture Protection Fund (OAPF) of the

Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD)1 is publishing the
following analysis in order to begin a necessary discussion of the
possible implications for the organic sector in Canada (and the US)
of the new Non-GMO Project. This document does not represent a
formal position of SOD but endeavours to raise important questions,
concerns and proposals relative to the Non-GMO Project and its
potential impacts on the future of organic food and the organic label.

The OAPF Committee wishes to thank Maureen Bostock for her assistance in preparing
this discussion paper. We welcome your comments. Please contact Arnold Taylor, Chair
of the OAPF at (306) 252-2783 or taylor.organic.farms@sasktel.net

Introduction

The Non-GMO Project was developed in response to a

From the Non-GMO
problem faced by natural foods retailers: how to identify
Project Website: The
and remove genetically engineered products from their Non-GMO Project is a non-
shelves. At that time, attempts to secure mandatory profit multi-stakeholder
labeling of GMOs2 were unsuccessful and activists collaboration committed to
turned to an alternate strategy of influencing consumer preserving and building
shopping choices3 to pressure corporations to stop sources of non-GMO
producing GMOs. In its original form, the Non-GMO products, educating
Project worked towards the total elimination of GE consumers, and providing
contaminated products. Today, the Non-GMO Project verified non-GMO
has been retooled to allow GE trace contamination in the choices.Our shared belief
products it verifies. is that everyone deserves
an informed choice about
whether or not to consume
While absence of all GMOs remains a stated target of the genetically modified
Non-GMO Project, the project contains a variance in organisms. We offer North
response to the increased production of GE crops which Americas only third party
allows: verification and labeling for
0.25% GE content for seeds non-GMO food and
0.9% GE content for food products.
1.5% in animal feed. www.nongmoproject.org

1
The Saskatchewan Organic Directorate (SOD) is the umbrella organization that unites the province's
producers, processors, buyers, traders, certifiers and consumers of certified organic food and fibre. SOD's
mission statement is "To champion the development of organic agriculture in a democratic manner". In
2001, SOD launched the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund (SOD OAPF) to pay the expenses for the
Class Action lawsuit on behalf of all certified organic grain farmers in Saskatchewan against Monsanto and
Bayer, which sought compensation for losses caused by genetically engineered (GE) canola, and to get an
injunction to stop Monsanto from introducing GE wheat in Saskatchewan.
2
GMOs refers to genetically modified or engineered organisms or crops.
3
The Centre for Food Safety offers a shopping guide to help consumers to avoid GE foods.

January 27, 2011: Discussion Paper: The Non-GMO Project: Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat? Page 1 of 5
The goal of the project is to eventually reduce the trace GE contamination to: 0.1% for
seeds, 0.5% for food and 0.9% for animal feed.

What caused this radical shift? Robin Jane Roff suggests in her article No Alternative?
Politics & History of Non-Gmo Certification4 that the Non-GMO Project had honorable
goals but lost ground as a result of pressure from industry. Helping companies avoid
mounting public criticisms (of GMOs) has replaced the original goals of reorienting
agrifood production around agroecological principles.

Consumer Issues

There are serious implications to the Non-GMO Projects decision to accept trace
contamination. While the intention of the Non-GMO Project is to provide consumers
with a way to identify foods which do not contain GMOs, consumer protection has been
compromised in a number of ways as outlined below.

Trace GMO
Trace GMO cannot be branded as Non-GMO. To the consumer, Non-GMO is code for
No GMO. Not a little bit of GMO. There is no other possible interpretation. It would
be as absurd to say that non-skid floors in hospitals were only a little bit slippery. The
consumer cannot help but believe that a product which is Non-GMO Project verified
contains no GMOs.

Verification of No-Risk Products

The Non-GMO Project verifies both high and low risk products. High risk products are
those which contain ingredients for which there are currently genetically engineered
versions being grown, such as corn, soybeans and canola. Low risk products are
essentially no risk as they are neither genetically engineered nor under threat from GE
contamination. For example, Cape Cod Frozen Cranberries are described on the Non-
GMO Projects website as fully compliant with the Non-GMO Project Standard even
though all frozen cranberries would meet the standard as there are no GMO cranberries.
As well, there is no processing involved, no ingredients added only washing and
packing of the cranberries, so there is no possibility of contamination.

While the Non-GMO Project maintains that verifying low risk or no risk products helps
consumers to make informed choices, in fact it misleads consumers to believe that only
the labeled cranberries are safe to eat. Consumer misinformation about which crops are
genetically engineered is staggering. Indeed, the consumer will be more confused by the
labeling of foods which are not altered by genetic engineering. One is led to question
whether the labeling of low or no risk foods as Non-GMO Project Verified is more of a
marketing initiative than an educational one. The Food & Drug Administration in the
U.S. has commented on this practice:

Further, a statement may be misleading if it suggests that a food or ingredient

itself is not bioengineered, when there are no marketed bioengineered varieties of
that category of foods or ingredients. For example, it would be misleading to state
"not produced through biotechnology" on the label of green beans, when there are
4
Agriculture & Human Values (2009) 26:351-363

January 27, 2011: Discussion Paper: The Non-GMO Project: Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat? Page 2 of 5
 no marketed bioengineered green beans. To not be misleading, the claim should
be in a context that applies to the food type instead of the individual
manufacturer's product. For example, the statement "green beans are not produced
using biotechnology" would not imply that this manufacturer's product is different
from other green beans.5

Similarly, the Canadian governments voluntary standard on the labeling of GE foods

which was developed by the Canadian General Standard Board after being approached by
the Canadian Council of Grocery Distributors states:

6.1.4 Claim that a single ingredient food is not a product of genetic engineering
shall not be made for a single-ingredient food of which no genetically engineered
strain have been offered for sale unless accompanied by an explanatory
statement for example, like all other oranges, these oranges are not a product of
genetic engineering.6

Confidentiality
Confidentiality agreements between the Project and its clients prevent the Non-GMO
Project from releasing GE test results unless required by a judicial or government request.
If test results showed trace GE contamination in a certified organic product, certifiers
would not be informed, nor would the test results be released to the consumer.

Promotional Messaging
The Projects symbol (two pieces of grass and a butterfly) conveys the message to the
consumer that the product is environmentally-friendly. Yet conventional products which
were produced with chemical fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides bear the Non-GMO
Project Verified label. The insect world including butterflies has been devastated by the
chemicals used in conventional agriculture. Ecologists state that the 1970s were the
decade in which insect populations peaked and have been on a steady decline towards
extinction since long before GMO crops were grown. Creating an environmentally
responsible, sustainable agriculture requires that these highly toxic chemicals are also
eliminated.

Impact on the Certified Organic Industry

The Non-GMO Projects decision to accept trace contamination has socio-political

implications as well. Before the Non-GMO Project decided to accept trace GMOs, there
was unity among environmental organizations, farmers and the organic movement to
oppose genetic engineering of food crops absolutely and without compromise.

The biotechnology lobby opposes all labeling efforts as they maintain that there is no
difference between an engineered crop and a non-engineered crop and argues vigorously
in favour of accepting trace genetic contamination as Unintended Residual
Environmental Contaminants. As the Non-GMO Project gains a stronger foothold among
processors, the biotechnology lobby may discover our internal dissention over trace
5
Food & Drug Administration Guidance on Labeling of GE Foods, updated in 2009
6
Voluntary Labelling & Advertiing of Foods That Are and Are Not Derived Through Biotechnology"
http://www.tpsgc.gc.ca/cgsb/on_the_net/032_0315/standard-e.html

January 27, 2011: Discussion Paper: The Non-GMO Project: Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat? Page 3 of 5
GMOs. This dissention may get in the way of future lobby and legal efforts to stop trace
contamination.

With the new threats of genetically engineered wheat, grasses and alfalfa looming over
us, it is critical that we stand united. Opposing genetically engineered crops because of
their contamination of other crops has been generally a successful strategy to keep new
genetically engineered crops from being introduced as in the case of genetically
engineered alfalfa and wheat. It is crucial that we support our international allies who are
fighting GE trace contamination of the wild and landrace corn seed stocks in Mexico.

The organic movement in Canada is faced with an additional challenge. Because we do

not test for GE contamination, the Non-GMO Project does not recognize organic
standards as fully equivalent even though we have a zero tolerance for genetic
engineering7. In an article in the New York Times (August 29, 2009), Dag Falck8 stated:

The thing is, if we have a contamination problem thats growing in organics,

what will happen one day when someone tests something and finds out that
organics is contaminated beyond a reasonable amount, say 5 to 10 percent?
Consumers would lose all faith in organics.

While the organic sector maintains that the process standard of organic certification is
sufficient to protect the purity of our crops and products, the Non-GMO Project has
expressed their lack of confidence in the organic protocol.

The organic sector must decide how to respond to this challenge:

o either negotiate full equivalency with the Non-GMO Project Standards,

o examine the extent of the contamination problem and/or
o initiate an advertising campaign to promote organics and all the benefits of
organic production, including the absence of GE crops.

Testing for GE contamination has serious limitations. There are two kinds of tests: the
quick and inexpensive strip test which detects the genetically engineered protein and the
polymerase chain reaction test which can test content as low as 0.1%. Regardless of
which test method is used, genetic testing is at best a rough sampling or a poll and should
be expressed as having a percentage of error based on the sampling size as compared to
the lot size. Measurement Uncertainty (MU) is a phrase used by researchers to describe
the limitations of testing. Both false positive errors in testing as well as false negatives
have been recorded.

Since GMO testing is a statistical process, repeated sampling and testing of the
very same cargo would regularly produce different results. There are several
sources of variance in GMO test results, including differences in the testing and
7
Under the Canadian Organic Standard, a proposal is in place to exempt the soy agars on which vaccines
are grown. If this proposal does not pass, vaccines will not be available to organic livestock producers in
Canada. The Non-GMO Project, by comparison, allows all vaccines including both those grown on soy
agars and those whose components are genetically engineered.
8
Dag Falck is a member of the Board of Directors of The Non-GMO Project.

January 27, 2011: Discussion Paper: The Non-GMO Project: Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat? Page 4 of 5
 sampling methods and protocols as well as inherent error rates in all types of
analytical tests (Laffont et al, 2005; Powell & Owen, 2002; Remund, Dixon,
Wright & Holden, 2001).9

Further, strip tests only test for the genetic contamination being sought, such as
glyphosate resistance, leaving the possibility of missed pharmaceutical contamination. A
comprehensive test which would identify all genetic contaminants present in the sample
does not yet exist commercially.

As the Non-GMO Project gains momentum in the U.S. and Canada, Canadian organic
grain producers may not be able to avoid the additional cost10 of Non-GMO Project
verification as the Non-GMO Project requires its clients to choose Non-GMO Project
verified inputs over others. The Non-GMO Project Standard guidance accompanying
paragraph 2.3.4 states: Participants must seek out Non-GMO Verified inputs.11
Organic farmers who sell corn and soybeans to processors and retailers in Canada & the
U.S. may find that obtaining Non-GMO verification is necessary to retain these large,
consistent markets for their grain.

There is no doubt that a labeling venture for GE has tremendous benefits in terms of
building consumer resistance to genetic engineering. With genetically engineered
soybeans and corn taking over the conventional marketplace, consumers are unknowingly
ingesting the products of genetic engineering each day. However it is clear that any
labeling venture must follow fundamental rules to be effective in mobilizing consumers.

Upon close examination, the Non-GMO Project label seems to fail as a consumer
protection strategy.

1. The Non-GMO Project should either accept no trace GE contamination or

include an explanation on all packaging that this product may contain GE
contamination up to .9%.
2. The label should only be used on products for which there is a GE version in
the marketplace.
3. Full disclosure of contamination incidents is essential to ensure
accountability.

Without these fundamental changes, the Non-GMO Project could stand in the way
of the organic and environmental movements campaign to resist trace GE
contamination and the genetic engineering of our food.

9
S. Konduru et al. GMO Testing Strategies & Implications for Trade: A Game Theoretic Approach, 2009
10
Costs are reported to be in excess of $500 per year for Non-GMO Project verification. Confirmation of
this has not been obtained.
11
Non-GMO Project Standard paragraph 2.3.4: Purchase and use of inputs shall be contingent on inputs
being compliant with requirements of the Non-GMO Project Standard including traceability, segregation
and GMO content.

January 27, 2011: Discussion Paper: The Non-GMO Project: Resisting GE or Constructing Defeat? Page 5 of 5