Genetically modified products were introduced over ten years ago and put on the market without any long term trials or tests.  Due to the lack of data available regarding the affects of these engineered ingredients, many countries have banned GMO products or require labeling. The US does not currently have any laws to identify, label or address GMOs in the food supply.  Our grocery stores are filled with products containing genetically engineered ingredients, but without labeling we cannot make informed choices about what we are eating.  

The most commonly genetically modified foods are: soybeans, cotton oil, canola oil and corn. As of 2011, 94% of US soybeans and 88% of US corn is genetically modified. It has reached the point that unless the box says "No GMOs" or "Organic"; you should assume it contains GMOs.

At Amy's, we think ingredients are best the way nature intended – organically grown and straight from the farm.  We do not purchase or use any genetically modified or engineered ingredients and believe we have the right to know what is in our food.

All suppliers are asked to provide a guarantee in writing that ingredients are neither derived from nor manufactured using genetically modified organisms. Because we work closely with our farmers, most of whom have been working with Amy's for decades, we know that our corn and soy farmers take extreme care to protect their organic crops. They plant their fields at a later time than the conventional farmers. While this may result in lower yields, it prevents cross-contamination and keeps their seed stock pure.  Where appropriate Amy's may engage in additional testing.


This is why we, along with many of our friends in the organic and natural industry, are supporting the Just Label It! campaign. This campaign seeks to convince the FDA to require labeling of all genetically engineered foods and food ingredients.
 
Please join us and support this initiative to take back our food supply.  We have a right to know what's in the food we eat and feed our families.  Please donate today and sign the petition 

For more information and resources about GMOs in our food, consult our Links page to the left.

More GMO information here:

Big Trouble for Monsanto?

Added by Bryce Shonka on January 16, 2012.

(NaturalNews) Purveyors of conventional and genetically-modified (GM) crops — and the pesticides and herbicides that accompany them — are finally getting a taste of their own legal medicine. Minnesota’s Star Tribune has reported that the Minnesota Court of Appeals recently ruled that a large organic farm surrounded by chemical-laden conventional farms can seek damages for lost crops, as well as lost profits, caused by the illegal trespassing of pesticides and herbicides on its property.

Oluf and Debra Johnson’s 1,500-acre organic farm in Stearns County, Minn., has repeatedly been contaminated by nearby conventional and GMO farms since the couple started it in the 1990s. A local pesticide cooperative known as Paynesville Farmers Union (PFU), which is near the farm, has been cited at least four times for violating pesticide laws, and inadvertently causing damage to the Johnson’s farm.

The first time it was realized that pesticides had drifted onto the Johnson’s farm in 1998, PFU apologized, but did not agree to pay for damages. As anyone with an understanding of organic practices knows, even a small bit of contamination can result in having to plow under that season’s crops, forget profits, and even lose the ability to grow organic crops in the same field for at least a couple years.

The Johnson’s let the first incident slide. But after the second, third, and fourth times, they decided that enough was enough. Following the second pesticide drift in 2002, the Johnson’s filed a complaint with the Minnesota Agriculture Department, which eventually ruled that PFU had illegally sprayed chemicals on windy days, which led to contamination of the Johnson’s organic crops.

PFU settled with the Johnson’s out of court, and the Johnson’s agreed to sell their tainted products as non-organics for a lower price, and pull the fields from production for three years in order to bring them back up to organic standards. But PFU’s inconsiderate spraying habits continued, with numerous additional incidents occurring in 2005, 2007, and 2008, according to the Star Tribune.

After enduring much hardship, the Johnson’s finally ended up suing PFU in 2009 for negligence and trespass, only to receive denial from the district court that received the case. But after appealing, the Johnson’s received favor from the Appeals Court, which ruled that particulate matter, including pesticides, herbicides, and even GM particulates, that contaminates nearby fields is, in fact, considered illegal trespass, and is subject to the same laws concerning other forms of trespass.

In a similar case, a California-based organic farm recently won a $1 million lawsuit filed against a conventional farm whose pesticides spread through fog from several miles away, and contaminated its fields. Jacobs Farm / Del Cobo’s entire season’s herb crop had to be discarded as a result, and the court that presided over the case acknowledged and agreed that the polluters must be held responsible.
Precedent has now been set for organic farmers to sue biotechnology companies whose GMOs contaminate their crops.

The stunning victories of both the Johnson’s and Jacob’s Farm / Del Cobo against their chemical-polluting neighbors is huge, in that it represents a new set legal precedent for holding conventional, factory farming operations responsible for the damage their systems cause to other farms. And with this new precedent set, many more organic farmers, for instance, can now begin suing GMO farmers for both chemical and genetic pollution that drifts onto their farms.

READ THE REST HERE

Peru Passes Monumental Ten-Year Ban on Genetically Modified Foods

In an act of defiance against bloated biotech companies like Monsanto. Peru has officially passed a law banning genetically modified ingredients within the nation for a period of 10 years. Peru’s Plenary Session of the Congress made the decision despite previous governmental pushes for GM legalization. Anibal Huerta, President of Peru’s Agrarian Commission, said the ban was needed to prevent the ”danger that can arise from the use of biotechnology.”

While the ban will stop the flow of GM foods within the nation’s borders, a recent test conducted by the Peruvian Association of Consumers and Users (ASPEC) found that 77 percent of supermarket products tested contained GM contaminants. Genetically modified ingredients are so widespread among nations that it will be extremely difficult for Peru and other countries to eliminate products containing GMOs.

“There is an increasing consensus among consumers that they want safe, local, organic fresh food and that they want the environment and wildlife to be protected,” wrote Walter Pengue from the University of Buenos Aires in Argentina, in a recent statement concerning GMOs in South America. “South American countries must proceed with a broader evaluation of their original agricultural policies and practices using the precautionary principle.”