Good luck distinguishing these Frankenfoods from real, natural food as they flood our supermarkets.

Genetically altered to withstand heavy applications of toxic chemicals, resist disease or contain more nutrients, so-called “Frankenfoods” are appearing on supermarket shelves at a rapid rate. Currently, genetically modified (GM) corn and soy can be found in many processed foods, and the produce section may contain GM zucchini, corn on the cob and papaya. But beyond those that have already been approved for human consumption, many more GMOs are on the way – and they probably won’t be labeled. These 20 crops and animal products include both those that are already available (whether we like it or not) and some that are still in development, like cows that produce human breast milk.

Corn

If you eat any kind of processed food on a regular basis – tortilla chips, cereal, granola bars – chances are, you consume genetically modified corn. The Center for Food Safety estimates that over 70% of the processed foods in American grocery stores contain genetically modified corn or soy. Corn is altered to contain proteins that kill insects that eat them, so they effectively produce their own pesticides.

Rice

Rice plants are often modified to be resistant to herbicides and pests, to increase grain size and to generate nutrients that don’t exist in the grain naturally. Varieties include Bayer’s herbicide-resistant “LibertyLink” rice, vitamin A-infused “golden rice” and the bizarre Ventria Bioscience “Express Tec” rice, which has been altered to contain human proteins naturally found in breast milk. The latter is used globally in infant formula.

Tomatoes

Among the first foods to be genetically altered, GM tomatoes have been developed to be unnaturally high in anti-oxidants, to have more intense flavor and to stay fresh longer. While there are not currently any genetically modified tomatoes on store shelves, they’re being used extensively by scientists to study the function of genes that are naturally present in the plants.

Soybeans

The most common genetically engineered food of all is the soybean. Since 1996, scientists have been creating varieties of soybeans that are resistant to both pests and herbicides, and they wind up in places you’d least expect them, like candy bars. A new GM soybean with higher levels of healthy oils was approved by the USDA in 2010; chemical companies DuPont and Monsanto are both working on their own versions of the biotech bean.

Cotton

We don’t think of cotton as a food, and technically it isn’t – but we still end up eating it. Cotton isn’t classified as a food crop, so farmers can use any chemicals they want when growing it. That means cottonseed oil, which is present in products like mayonnaise and salad dressing, can be packed full of pesticides. Along with soy, corn and canola, cotton grown for oil extraction is one of the most frequently genetically modified crops in the world.

Canola Oil

Canola, a cultivar of rapeseed, produces one of the most commonly consumed food oils, and it’s one of America’s biggest cash crops. What you may not know is that canola stands for “Canadian oil, low acid,” referring to a variety of rapeseed developed in the 1970s. 80% of the acres of canola sown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and a 2010 study in North Dakota found that the modified genes of these plants have spread to 80% of wild natural rapeseed plants.

Sugar Beets

Despite the fact that an environmental impact study has yet to be completed, the USDA has announced that farmers may now plant Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, which have been altered to withstand the company’s herbicide. This decision comes despite a 2010 court order that prohibited planting the GMO beets until the study was performed. Sugar beets provide about half of America’s sugar.

Salmon

Salmon may become the first genetically modified animal to be approved for direct human consumption. The FDA has decided that a variety of GM salmon that grow twice as fast as their natural, un-modified peers is both safe to eat and safe for the environment.

“We’re looking here at a scenario where the fish might wind up sooner or later in the ocean,” Brian Ellis, plant biotechnologist at the University of British Columbia Vancouver, told Discovery News. “I think if we go down this route, we have to be prepared to accept some potentially unknown consequences.”

Sugar Cane

Providing the other half of America’s precious sugar, sugar cane is set to debut on our shelves in genetically modified form sometime soon. Brazil’s state-owned agricultural research agency has been hard at work developing drought-resistant sugar cane that also bears increased yields for years now, and may have it certified for commercial use within five years. Australia is also working on its own version.

Papaya

After the Ringspot Virus nearly destroyed all of Hawaii’s papaya crops, a new variety was engineered to resist the disease, and it now represents the majority of the papayas grown in the United States.

“Papaya would be unique in the sense where the industry in Hawaii is dependent on biotech,” says Kevin Richards, director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau. “What you have in Hawaii is a very contained, isolated agro-eco system, which is vulnerable to diseases.”

Potatoes

The first genetically modified food to be approved for cultivation in Europe in over a decade, Amflora potatoes are currently being grown in Sweden. High in starch content, the potatoes are actually meant for use in paper, glues and other commercial products rather than as food, but that doesn’t mean they won’t end up affecting the food chain. Nearby farmers worry about their rabbits, deer, and especially their bees.

Honey

Could genetically modified crops have something to do with the mysterious ailments that are killing honeybee colonies by the billions? Some researchers believe so. A zoologist in Germany found that genes used to modify rapeseed crops had transferred to bacteria living inside bees. GMOs are currently considered to be among the possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder. And if the genes are causing changes within the bees, they’re also likely to cause changes to the honey that the bees produce.

Bananas

After banana crops in Uganda were affected by a bacterial disease that caused the plants to rot, scientists developed a genetically modified variety that could help alleviate the $500 million annual loss. The ban on GM crops was waived to make way for the GM version of Uganda’s staple food. A gene from sweet pepper was inserted into the bananas that make them resistant to the bacteria. Cultivated bananas have almost no genetic diversity, so supporters of this decision argue that introducing the GMO fruits will actually help bananas as a whole.

Zucchini Squash

Zucchini are among the foods currently on store shelves that are often genetically modified. The main threats to zucchini harvests are viruses and fungal infections, and GM zucchini eliminate those problems.

Pork

Pigs are currently being genetically modified for the possibility of producing human organs as early as 2013, but that’s not their only use. Another variety may eventually end up on our plates. A project called “Enviropig” has inserted genes from mice and E.coli bacteria into pigs to make them process their food more efficiently, potentially reducing their environmental impact. The modification allows the pigs to digest chemicals called phosphates which are present in cereal grains; these chemicals normally just pass right through a pig’s system where they can end up in waterways.

Alfalfa

Genetic modification is making its way into the sprouts on your sandwiches and salads. The GMO industry demanded that the USDA allow unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa, which makes up about 7 percent of U.S. crop fields. Alfalfa is a prolific pollinator, so it can easily spread to non-GMO alfalfa. USDA chief Tom Vilsack resisted the idea at first, but in January 2011, he gave in.

Meat and Eggs

The importance of that GMO alfalfa decision? It has a huge domino effect on the entire food chain. Alfalfa is not just grown for edible sprouts, of course – it’s mainly animal feed. Livestock have been fed genetically modified grains like corn and soy since 1996, when these crops were first introduced, and adding alfalfa to the mix will substantially increase the amount of GMOs that animals like cows, chickens and pigs take in. Of course, just like all of the other effects of GMOs, how all of this will pan out for the livestock and for us is not yet clear.

And direct genetic modification of food animals is in the works, too. Aside from the previously mentioned pigs, animals that are in “laboratory stage” include cows and goats that can produce milk containing drugs like antibiotics, and chickens that produce drugs in their egg whites. Under current FDA rules, GMO meat and dairy won’t need to have special labels on store shelves, making it extremely difficult to tell what is modified and what isn’t.

Milk

Aside from the contamination that may occur when dairy livestock consume genetically modified feed, GMOs can end up in your milk in other ways, too. The United States is currently the only nation in the world that allows milk containing the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to be sold for human consumption. Milk from cows treated with these artificial hormones has been found to contain lower nutritional value, higher pus content (yes, you read that correctly) and increased levels of the cancer-causing hormone IGF-1.

And then there are the cows that are being genetically engineered to produce human breast milk. Scientists in China have bred a herd of 300 dairy cows with milk that resembles the balance of fats and nutrients that are best for human babies. The researchers believe that this modified cow milk is a possible substitute for human milk, and could be sold on store shelves in the future.

Aspartame

How can an artificial substance be genetically modified? Aspartame may seem like an odd addition to this list, but the fact is, Monsanto makes it using genetically modified bacteria. The bacteria produce the amino acid phenylalanine, which, when combined with aspartic acid, creates the faux sweetener.

Photos:  millionsagainstmonsanto, kimberlykv, janineomg, maurice

The post 20 Genetically Modified Foods Coming to Your Plate appeared first on EcoSalon.

Would champagne by any other name taste as sweet? Or toasty, citrusy, maybe nutty with notes of baked honey, caramel and coffee? Maybe. But the world likes to think not. “Champagne” (like Bordeaux, and Camembert cheese) is protected. In most countries it is illegal to label anything but wines hailing from the official winemaking region or “appellation” of Champagne as champagne.

The governing bodies in charge of protecting the wine include: the INAO institute, which administers the appéllation d’origine contrôlée (A.O.C.) law, the Comité Interprofessionel du Vin de Champagne (C.I.V.C.) which makes rules about viticulture, cultivation of grapes and production of champagne, along with plain old customs officials.

But they can’t stop recessionista party hosts, or fraudulent bar managers from pouring imitation bubbly to reap savings or profits this New Year’s Eve.

This week, the blogosphere has been abuzz about food and drink fraud. And not just because it’s time to pop the cork. Twelfth grade science students at Trinity School in Manhattan, Brenda Tan and Matt Cost, DNA tested everything from tilapia to tuna. Their informal study found 11 of 66 food products around their homes were not made of what the labels claimed.

Two examples: a package claiming “yellow catfish” was actually comprised of the invasive species, walking catfish; and a piece of sheep’s milk cheese was in fact from cow’s milk.

DNA testing could be used by food safety inspectors and police to thwart food fraud. But it’s not just about the money.

Fraudulent labeling also covers up the continued slaughter of endangered species, both plants and animals, that have protected status. And mislabeled foods can cause allergic reactions, even death to people or pets.

Read up on recent food labeling scandals, and use the resources below to understand what’s going into your favorite snack, meal or on the menu.

Basic Reading:

The U.S. Food And Drug Administration’s “backgrounder” on food labeling and nutrition for consumers and industry professionals

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service site, including a database of plants and animals on the endangered species list

“Whether you want to know where your beef’s been for philosophical or health reasons, this web-based tool [from The Green Guide] will give you some insight. For instance, if the package bears a stamp reading “˜USDA Organic,’ you know the cow was fed only 100% organic grass, grain and corn… [or] if your steak comes from a cow that may have been given growth hormones, or your burger contains the remnants of antibiotics given to an ill animal.”- Lifehacker

“For far too long, some of the world’s biggest food manufacturers have designed their labels either to exaggerate the amount of healthy ingredients, or to imply that the food has magical, drug-like qualities that could prevent or treat various health problems,” said Center for Science in the Public Interest legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. – A Dec. 2009 advocates’ report on false, if legal, food labeling

“Following several cork-popping years of record-breaking shipments (and some might say price gouging) to the U.S., the Champagne Bureau is reporting a slump. It’s hangover time. US sales of imported bubbly have gone flat in 2009 dropping 41.2% from January to August… There are currently more than 1 billion bottles all dressed up with nowhere to go, sitting in warehouses all over the Champagne region of France.” – A Walletpop guide to affordable, authentic champagne

Further Resources:

The official home page of the eco-gastronomic non-profit Slow Food Interational

The official home page of the U.K.’s Food Standards Agency including many news items on food labeling and nutrition

The official home page of the California Certified Organic Farmers

The New Yorker’s Dec. 2009 profile of Whole Foods founder and food activist, John Mackey

A Fooducate blog post criticizing Nestle and the F.D.A.

This is the 9th installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring eco news, tech and business highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: nlmAdestiny

The post EcoMeme: It’s What’s Inside That Counts (Especially With Food & Drink) appeared first on EcoSalon.

As the World Summit on Food Security convenes in Rome this week, world leaders will debate how best to combat worsening worldwide hunger and escalating food prices. Biotechnology will most certainly be on the table.

As a polarizing subject, biotechnology has no peer.

On the one hand, it has potential to raise crop yields, increase the nutrient value in food and speed up traditional plant breeding through marker-assisted selection, a biotechnology that does not mix genes of different species.

On the other hand, biotechnology is generally funded and controlled by large corporations. The corporations then patent the products produced through the technology and sell them to farmers to make a profit.

In the past, agricultural knowledge and seeds have been owned by everyone for the common good and shared freely among gardeners and farmers. This new system is a departure from how food has traditionally been raised. By turning knowledge into private property, it effectively removes the control over food production from the communities engaged in it.

There are many other problems with biotechnology, as well, including potential loss of biodiversity, environmental degradation caused by indiscriminate spraying of pesticides and herbicides on crops that have been bioengineered to withstand heavy doses of chemicals, and the unknown impacts on our health we may experience from consuming genetically modified organisms.

Another problem is with the companies that develop and promote this technology. Monsanto in particular is known for spying on farmers and suing them if Monsanto-patented crops are found in the farmers’ fields – whether or not the farmers planted these crops or they ended up their via “drift.” Further, Monsanto is known for using strong-armed tactics to gain new markets in countries around the world.

Monsanto has also been devoting significant resources to an advertising campaign aimed at thought leaders who read publications like The New Yorker, or listen to NPR stations. To influence a public that is wary of biotechnology, the campaign asserts that we need biotechnology to “feed the world.” The ads imply that if you care about starving people around the world, you’ll support biotechnology.

This advertising is disingenuous because most crops patented by Monsanto are engineered to withstand the pesticides and herbicides the company also sells. In reality, developing these crops and selling them to farmers is another way to sell more chemicals.

Furthermore, the most widely-planted GMO crops don’t feed the people in the countries where the crops are grown; they are export crops for the global marketplace. Most are not used for food at all.

Soybeans, the most-planted GMO-crop worldwide, go mostly to feed animals or for biofuel; GMO corn is used in animal feed and industrial products; rapeseed is used to make canola oil; cotton, of course, is not even a food crop.

All of these crops favor large landholders, not the people we think of when talking about hunger.

With GMO development being framed as the only way to combat hunger, let’s take a look at some of the global hotspots around the world.

Africa

The Bill and Melinda Gates and Rockefeller Foundations are currently funding what’s touted as a Second Green Revolution in Africa. Unlike the first Green Revolution in Asia and South Asia, which promoted a fossil-fuel dependent form of heavy input agriculture, this new, improved Green Revolution is supposed to benefit smallholders, use genetic engineering to reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers and utilize the extensive knowledge of the farmers on the ground.

According to an article in Seed Magazine, seven out of every 10 Africans make their livelihoods through farming. They produce the majority of Africa’s food but with minimal resources and little support. Agriculture receives, on average, just 4 to 5 percent of national budgets.

This article asserts that the main problem is not lack of technology. It is that national governments have not invested enough in basic programs that will turn smallholder farming into a viable economic enterprise.

The Gates Foundation funding is being distributed to AGRA, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa. According to AGRA’s website, AGRA “works to achieve a food secure and prosperous Africa through the promotion of rapid, sustainable agricultural growth based on smallholder farmers.”

That all sounds good, but in an article in The Nation this past September, it was revealed that though the Gates Foundation appears to have learned something from the first Green Revolution, much of what is being funded looks like business as usual.

The Gates project is doing some work engaging small farmers and sharing technology with African scientists, but researchers at the Community Alliance for Global Justice have found that a hefty portion of the Gates money is going to organizations connected to Monsanto.

Some farmers that have been working on their own sustainable, ecologically based farming systems to increase yields say they have been ignored. For their part, The Gates Foundation responded to these charges in a letter to the editor in The Nation. That letter (and others) can be read here.

According to Africa Files, “a network of people committed to Africa through its promotion of human rights, economic justice, African perspectives and alternative analyses,” AGRA is a “hoax.”

Africa Files accuses AGRA of promoting monoculture type farming that relies on heavy irrigation and ignoring the possibilities of economic gains when smallholders engage in organic farming.

According to Annie Shattuck, Policy Analyst for Food First, The Institute for Food and Development Policy, and co-author of the article in The Nation cited above,

“The pattern of the Green Revolution is to reduce agriculture systems to a monoculture crop that responds well to a highly limited set of circumstances and inputs. Trying to engineer genetic resistance to one more circumstance is not going to cut it for the agriculture of the future. We need systems that provide resilience to multiple hazards, and to do that we need diverse sustainable systems that also provide a decent living for the people who work them.”

India

The first Green Revolution begun in the 1970s was touted as a success. But today, it looks more like a disaster in India. While yields did go up, hunger did not go down. The reason for this is the high input technologies promoted tended to favor large, already privileged landholders. What it really did was push a lot of rural people into cities to try their luck there.

Today, despite the Green Revolution, there are famine conditions in India caused by drought and extreme weather. Suicide among Indian farmers has been epidemic as farmers find themselves in crushing debt when technological farming fails. Recent stories profile Indian farmers going back to organic methods.

What’s clear from the stories in India is that technological solutions only work for so long. Whether you are talking about chemical fertilizers, or genetic modification, such solutions are a crude fix overlaid across nature’s elegant variability. Currently, the only GM crop grown in India is cotton, but the country recently approved the development of GM eggplant.

“The myth of “one gene, one solution” to complex problems like climate change and poverty, (the root cause of hunger), is a myopic way to look at what is a complex ecological and social problem”, says Annie Shattuck. “So far attempts to engineer drought tolerance have been a miserable failure. The crops do well in drought years, but not in a normal year. We know agriculture will have to use less water and less fossil fuel in the future. It will also have to deal with increasingly wild weather – delays in the rainy season, erratic frosts, more intense storms. Unpredictability is the name of the game.”

China

Due to concerns about food security while agricultural land is being lost to rapid industrialization, China has been engaged in state-sponsored GMO research since the early part of this century. Details of the Chinese program are sketchy but the most interesting aspect of the program is that it is owned by the Chinese government rather than being funded by Monsanto, BayerCropScience, Syngenta or any of the other large agricultural biotech companies.

According to an article in Reuters, a large budget was approved in 2008 for GMO research with a huge portion of that budget earmarked for safety research. A good thing, because unauthorized GM rice has been found in processed foods imported into the EU from China.

With consumers in Europe among the least accepting of GM foods, China would do well to be cautious.

According to Chinese officials, the Chinese program “aims to obtain genes with great potential commercial value whose intellectual property rights belong to China, and to develop high-quality, high-yield and pest-resistant genetically modified new species.” Currently China grows large amounts of transgenic cotton. Rice, wheat, corn, soybeans, and a few food crops like peppers and papaya are in the development phase.

Mexico

In October, Mexico issued the first permits to grow GM corn. Despite assurances that the corn will not be planted in the same areas as native corn, native corn in Mexico is already contaminated. In a study published in the journal Nature, in 2001, scientists reported that corn in remote fields in Oaxaca was contaminated with GM genes.

This report set off an ugly industry effort to discredit the scientists who published the study. But in spring 2009, the controversy was finally put to rest when another study confirmed the findings of the first study. At any rate, according to the story in Reuters, some Mexican farmers in the north have been planting GM corn illegally.

Turkey

In a surprising and controversial move in October, Turkey (which doesn’t grow any GM crops) put restrictions on the import of GM foods into the country. Some say the move did not go far enough toward an outright ban and will endanger Turkey’s chances in its bid to join the EU. The regulation does not restrict or ban the import or use of GMOs but rather introduced some criteria for their import. Because Turkey does not yet set rules and regulations for GMOs, the government sees this as a stopgap measure until a comprehensive law comes into effect.

Ireland

Also in October, Ireland joined a growing number of countries with an outright ban on growing GM crops or using GM feed for livestock.

The battle lines are sharply drawn.

As Europe, Japan, and some Middle Eastern countries increasingly reject GM foods, look for more action in developing countries as agricultural biotech companies muscle in. Just last week, President Obama nominated Dr. Rajiv Shah as Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Most recently, Dr. Shah served as undersecretary and Chief Scientist at the Department of Agriculture under Tom Vilsack and before that was the Director for Agricultural Development at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where he promoted the technological farming solutions of the organization.

As we debate how to feed the world, we would do well to remember that the problem is not so much lack of food. The problem is lack of food sovereignty. When control of the food system is in corporate hands rather than local ones, people who have no money to buy food on the open market starve.

For more information on the GMOs in the developing world, and other battles for food sovereignty, sign up for the Food First newsletter or check out their publications section. If you want to help, donations are always welcome.

Image: Untitled blue

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post A Global Analysis: Is Biotechnology Really the Only Way to Solve Hunger? appeared first on EcoSalon.

People buy organic foods for many reasons: their health, better taste, a desire to keep pesticides and herbicides out of our air, water and soil and a conviction that buying organic is one way to eat GMO-free.

One of the big problems with GMOs is that non-GMO crops can be contaminated through pollen drift. The fact that the organic field of soybeans used to make your organic soymilk could contain genetically modified material from a neighboring farm hasn’t been a possibility that most organic food producers have wanted to talk about or a question they have wanted to ask.

Independent organic and natural food producers, independent natural food stores and the largest natural/organic foods grocery store and natural/organic food distributor in the country have joined forces in the Non-GMO Project. Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, UNFI (a distributor of natural and organic foods), Straus Family Creamery, Whole Foods Market and many others have signed on. (Check out the complete list of enrolled products.)

The idea is simple, though the outcome will likely be complicated. Enrollees in the project agree to test any ingredients in their products that are grown in GMO form in America. Products that are verified as (nearly) GMO free by the process will be labeled with a GMO Verified seal. But because contamination is already so likely, the project wants to make sure consumers understand that this doesn’t mean the product is 100% GMO-free.

From the Non-GMO Project website:

“It is not a guarantee that the product is 100% GMO free. The reason for this is that our program is process-based, using a set of best practices to avoid contamination. We do require testing of all ingredients (everything being grown in GMO form in North America), but we don’t require testing of every single finished product. Instead, testing can be done at any one of a number of places in the production chain, for example right after harvest.Following the test, which must indicate that the ingredient is below 0.9% GMO (in alignment with laws in the European Union), we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure that the tested ingredients are what get used in the product. So in short,  what our seal means is that a product has been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, including testing of risk ingredients.”

The non-GMO project is radical.

With all of the recent bad press about organics, the organic establishment does not want to be looking for any GMO skeletons in any closets. Whatever they find could be very bad for business and very bad for the organic label. But that’s short-term thinking. The forward thinking companies that have signed onto the non-GMO project recognize that the credibility of the organic label is in question without further reassurance.

Getting the problem out in the open and being transparent about the process is not only the right thing to do, it’s a smart business decision, as well. Ignoring the problem in hopes that it won’t blow up is a poor way to do business.

Transparency was a huge part of organics in the beginning and some companies still uphold the value of transparency. As the Chicago Tribune points out, large conventional companies usually don’t want you to know that they own your favorite organic brands. That being the case, they certainly wouldn’t want you to know their products might be contaminated with GMOs.

It’s instructive to take a look at the list of food companies that have signed on to the non-GMO project. The few remaining independent organic and natural food companies that have refused to sell to large conventional conglomerates are there: Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, Turtle Island Foods and Straus Family Creamery are some of the participants with the most widely distributed products.

These companies are also some of the most principled in the business. Eden foods was the first company to stop using BPA-lined cans. Turtle Island won’t use any ingredient that is processed using hexane. None of these companies are owned by anyone other than their founders. Though I don’t buy a lot of packaged foods, when I do, these are the types of brands I’ll choose. When faced with a choice between Silk (owned by Dean Foods) and Eden, there is no contest. This handy visual chart will tell you who owns your favorite organic brands.

A number of retailers have endorsed the project – mostly small independents and co-ops. Whole Foods Market has signed on, which is hugely important in my opinion, and something they deserve praise for (they need it right now).

In related news, a U.S. District judge rejected the USDA’s decision to allow genetically modified sugar beets to enter the market. The decision was based largely on the risk of contamination to non-GMO crops due to cross-pollination. According to SFGate.com, the judge “cited studies that said winds can carry sugar beet pollen at least 2 1/2 miles, much farther than the voluntary buffer zones between beet crops recommended by Oregon agriculture officials.”

Want to buy non-GMO certified products? According to the New York Times, labels could start appearing on products this fall.

Image: jonboymitchell

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post Non-GMO Project Brings Transparency to Organic Foods appeared first on EcoSalon.