Positive Zukunft mit Verity Corp.(VRTY)
Optionen
| Boardmail an "snowhover" |
Wertpapier: Verity |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "snowhover" |
Wertpapier: Verity |
jetzt einen neuen Präsidenten hat, sehe ich nicht als negativ. Schließlich haben
einige andere im Vorstand auch ein Mitbestimmungsrecht, wie die Entwicklung
bei Verity weitergehen soll und Ihn überstimmt. Da macht es sinn, sich einen
neuen Präsidenten zu suchen, der mit der Mehrheit im Vorstand einer Meinung
ist.
vrty ist auf dem richtigen wege! man muß sich halt mit der firma beschäftigen , jeder hier kann vrty direkt anschreiben und bekommt auch die gewünschten antworten, vorausgesetzt das geschriebene englisch ist einigermaßen verständlich :) ich hab meine antworten und das ist gut so...
Optionen
| Boardmail an "snowhover" |
Wertpapier: Verity |
Angehängte Grafik:
image.jpg (verkleinert auf 79%)
image.jpg (verkleinert auf 79%)
SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Did that cereal you just spooned into your mouth contain corn that was tweaked in a lab to have bug-killing bacteria? Or was it made with soybeans that have had their DNA changed so the plant can be doused with pesticide?
In most cases, it's impossible to tell.
That right to know whether the food you eat contains GMOs -- genetically modified organisms -- is at the center of a multi-million dollar national fight between the food industry and consumer rights advocates.
Grocery trade groups and farmers who grow the crops say labels will only scare people needlessly and raise the price of food. Consumer advocates say everyone has the right to know whether they are eating something whose DNA was changed in a lab.
The scientific tweaks at the center of the debate are called genetic modifications. More than 400 million acres of genetically modified crops are grown in the world. The vast majority of corn, soy and cotton grown in the U.S. is genetically modified, or "GMO." Sugar, too, often comes from GMO beet plants.
The fight over the right to know whether food is GMO came to New York this year and experts on both sides says it's here to stay.
The food industry successfully fought off a GMO-labeling effort in New York earlier this year, dropping $3.7 million lobbying against a label that would tell consumers whether their food contained GMO-ingredients. The bill was introduced in the state Assembly and Senate, but died before it got to a vote either place.
The proposed law was one of 70 introduced in 30 states over the past two years calling for the labeling of GMO foods, according to Colin O'Neil, of the Center for Food Safety, which supports mandatory labeling.
Vermont has become the state to watch. It's the first state to pass a mandatory GMO labeling law that didn't require neighboring states to enact similar legislation.
A court will decide the law's fate. In June, trade groups representing grocers and food manufacturers filed a federal lawsuit claiming it was unconstitutional.
The state of Vermont is fundraising to fight back. Ben & Jerry's renamed its' fudge brownie flavor "Food Fight! Fudge Brownie" and $1 of each sale in Vermont is going to pay for the law's defense.
Wegmans, too, has spoken up about labeling. The grocery chain wants better federal guidelines for voluntary labeling.
Are we what we eat?
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration has to approve genetic modifications to food and seeds, but there is no requirement to label GMO products. Many of the modifications are tweaks to seeds that enable crops to withstand common pests. But some of the products that are currently in the pipeline sound like they are out of SciFi film: Salmon that grows twice as fast, apples that don't turn brown for 21 days after being sliced.
Right now, there are two options for people who are concerned about eating genetically modified foods. Food that has been certified organic cannot be genetically modified in any way. There is also a non-GMO label available through certification from a nonprofit called The Non-GMO Project. Roughly 20,000 products have gone through that certification process since 2007, according to the organization.
Consumers seek those labels out because they are concerned GMO-food might bear some hidden health risks, said O'Neil.
Dr. Walter C. Willett, a medical doctor who heads up the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, said that likely isn't the case. Most of the modifications approved for use in the U.S., like crops that can withstand the pesticide Roundup, are unlikely to hurt people, Willet said.
But Willett still supports labeling GMO foods. "I favor labeling GMO foods as a matter of transparency, and if there is really nothing wrong with these foods, manufacturers should support this," Willett said.
Consumer driven
Consumers are powering both sides of the debate. No one wants their apple to turn brown. Cheaper salmon would be great. At the same time, increasing numbers of shoppers are looking for organic food and food that is certified non-GMO, said Jane Andrews, manager of nutrition and product labeling for the Wegmans chain.
A 2012 national survey by the Just Label It Campaign, which supports mandatory labeling, found that 91 percent of the public supported mandatory labeling of GMO foods using a national standard.
Wegmans doesn't support this. But the chain recently came out in favor of a national standard for voluntary labeling of non-GMO foods.
"Concerned consumers are interested in finding the products that do not contain GMO ingredients," Andrews said.
Wegmans, which has stores in six states, opposed New York's law.
"If each state comes up with their own definition, it would be even more confusing for food companies as well as consumers," she said. Andrews pointed out that New York's proposal doesn't include dairy products where cows were given growth hormones or meat that had been fed GMO grains.
Contested costs
The ripples of a labeling law are unclear. A study by Cornell University professor William Lesser found that New York's proposed law would raise a family's grocery costs by an average of $500 a year and cost manufacturers and grocers millions. (Critics point out that his research was funded by the Council for Biotechnology Information, an industry organization for the companies that develop GMO technologies).
Steve Ammerman, a spokesman for the New York Farm Bureau, said mandatory labeling could force farmers to stop growing GMO crops. "That can drive agriculture back decades where farmers used more toxic pesticides and were at even greater mercy of Mother Nature," Ammerman said.
Ammerman said the Farm Bureau supports the current voluntary non-GMO labeling system that exists.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents 300 food retailers and manufacturers and is the major force behind the Vermont lawsuit, has cited public opinion in its arguments against mandatory labeling. It touted a recent survey by the Coalition for Safe Affordable Food, a group that opposes mandatory labeling, that found 63 percent of the people polled favored the FDA's position, which requires no labeling and allows voluntary labeling based on no specific FDA standards.
"GM crops are safe and have important benefits for people and our planet. They use less water and fewer pesticides, reduce crop prices by 15-30 percent and can help us feed a growing global population of seven billion people," the Grocery Manufacturers Association said in a statement about the Vermont lawsuit.
The trade group supports federal legislation that would require a label on GMO foods only if the FDA finds there is a health risk.
But O'Neil, of the Center for Food Safety, which supports mandatory federal labeling of GMO foods, said the current situation offers most consumers nothing but confusion. And it is creating a divide along class lines. People who want the assurance of knowing that their food has no GMO products in it can choose organic or non-GMO labeled products, which often cost more. And it's not a choice poorer families can afford to make, if they are concerned about GMO.
"We don't think it should matter where you shop or what foods you buy," O'Neil said. If there was a uniform federal standard, everyone would know what they were getting. "No matter where you shop - Piggly Wiggly, 7-Eleven, or Whole Foods, you can know."
Link with active embedded links at: LINK: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/08/...ed_ingredients.html
Syrakus, N.Y.--Enthalten das Getreide, das Sie gerade in den Mund Mäuler Mais, die in einem Labor, Bug-töten Bakterien haben gezwickt wurde? Oder war es aus mit Sojabohnen, die hatten ihre DNA geändert, so dass die Pflanze mit Pestizid übergossen werden kann?
In den meisten Fällen ist es unmöglich zu sagen.
Recht zu wissen, ob das Essen enthält GVO--genetisch veränderte Organismen ist in der Mitte von einem Multimillionen-Dollar nationalen Kampf zwischen der Lebensmittel-Industrie und Verbraucher Rechte Fürsprecher.
Lebensmittelgeschäft-Handelsgruppen und Landwirte, die die Pflanzen angebaut werden sagen Etiketten nur Menschen unnötig zu erschrecken und erhöhen die Preise von Lebensmitteln. Verbraucher-Befürworter sagen, jeder hat das Recht zu wissen, ob man etwas ißt, dessen DNA in einem Labor geändert wurde.
Die wissenschaftliche zwickt im Mittelpunkt der Debatte werden genetische Veränderungen genannt. Mehr als 400 Millionen Hektar gentechnisch veränderter Pflanzen werden in der ganzen Welt angebaut. Die überwiegende Mehrheit der Mais, Soja und Baumwolle angebaut in den USA ist genetisch veränderte, oder "GVO." Zucker, kommt auch häufig von GVO-Pflanzen für Zuckerrüben.
Der Streit um das Recht zu wissen, ob Lebensmittel GVO kam nach New York in diesem Jahr und Experten auf beiden Seiten sagt es ist hier um zu bleiben.
Die Lebensmittelindustrie kämpfte erfolgreich aus einem GVO-Kennzeichnung Anstrengungen in New York Anfang dieses Jahres fallen $ 3,7 Millionen Lobbyarbeit gegen eine Bezeichnung, die Verbraucher sagen würde, ob ihre Nahrung GVO-Zutaten enthalten. Der Gesetzentwurf wurde im Zustand Versammlung und Senat eingeführt, aber starb, bevor es zur Abstimmung wurde entweder Ort.
Das vorgeschlagene Gesetz war einer der 70 in 30 Staaten in den letzten zwei Jahren fordern die Kennzeichnung von GVO-Lebensmittel, eingeführt nach Colin O'Neil, des Center for Food Safety, die obligatorische Kennzeichnung unterstützt.
Vermont geworden, den Zustand zu sehen. Es ist der erste Staat, der einen obligatorischen GVO Kennzeichnung Gesetz, das benachbarte Staaten ähnliche Gesetze erlassen erfordern nicht übergeben.
Ein Gericht kann das Gesetz Schicksal entscheiden. Im Juni klagten Handelsgruppen, Lebensmittelgeschà ¤ ft und Lebensmittelhersteller darstellt Bundesministerium behauptet, dass es verfassungswidrig sei.
Des Bundesstaates Vermont fundraising, um zurückzuschlagen. Ben & Jerry's umbenannt seine ' fudge Brownie Geschmack "Food Fight! Fudge Brownie"und $1 für jeden Verkauf in Vermont wird für das Gesetz Verteidigung zu bezahlen.
Wegmans, sprach auch über die Kennzeichnung. Einzelhandelskonzerns will bessere nationale Richtlinien für die freiwillige Kennzeichnung.
Sind wir, was wir essen?
In den USA der Food and Drug Administration hat Genveränderungen auf Nahrung und Saatgut zu genehmigen; es gibt keine Verpflichtung zur Label-GVO-Produkte Viele der Änderungen sind kleine Änderungen an Samen, mit die Kulturen gemeinsame Schädlinge standhalten zu können. Aber einige der Produkte, die derzeit in der Pipeline sind klingen, wie sie aus SciFi-Film: Lachs, die doppelt so schnell wächst Äpfel, die für 21 Tage nach geschnitten wird bräunen nicht.
Gerade jetzt, es gibt zwei Optionen für schwerhörige besorgt über gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel zu essen. Lebensmittel, die Bio zertifiziert ist werden nicht genetisch in irgendeiner Weise geändert. Es gibt auch ein GVO-Label durch Zertifizierung von einer gemeinnützigen The Non-GVO-Projekt genannt. Etwa sind 20.000 Produkte seit 2007, nach der Organisation durch die Zertifizierungsprozess gegangen.
Verbraucher suchen die Etiketten raus weil sie besorgt sind GVO-Lebensmittel könnten tragen einige versteckten Gesundheitsrisiken, sagte O'Neil.
Dr. Walter C. Willett, Doktor der Medizin, die Abteilung Ernährung an der Harvard School of Public Health leitet, sagte, dass das wahrscheinlich nicht der Fall ist. Großteil der Modifikationen für den Einsatz in den USA, wie Kulturen, die das Pestizid Roundup, standhalten dürften Menschen, verletzt Willet sagte.
Aber Willett unterstützt noch Kennzeichnung GVO-Lebensmittel. "Ich bevorzuge Kennzeichnung GVO-Lebensmittel als eine Frage der Transparenz und ob es wirklich nichts falsch mit diesen Lebensmitteln, Hersteller unterstützen sollte," sagte Willett.
Verbraucher getrieben
Verbraucher sind beide Seiten der Debatte einschalten. Niemand will ihre Apple zu bräunen. Billiger Lachs wäre toll. Zur gleichen Zeit sagte immer mehr Käufer suchen für Bio-Lebensmittel und Lebensmittel, die zertifizierte GVO-, Jane Andrews, Manager von Ernährung und Produktkennzeichnung für die Wegmans-Kette.
Ein 2012-Landesvermessung durch die nur Label es Kampagne, die obligatorische Kennzeichnung unterstützt, fand, dass 91 Prozent der Öffentlichkeit unterstützt obligatorische Kennzeichnung von GVO-Lebensmittel, die mit einer nationalen Norm erhalten.
Wegmans unterstützt dies nicht. Aber die Kette kam kürzlich zu Gunsten einer nationalen Norm für die freiwillige Kennzeichnung von GVO-Lebensmitteln.
"Betroffene Verbraucher interessiert die Produkte finden, die keine GVO Zutaten enthalten sind," sagte Andrews.
Wegmans, die Geschäfte in sechs Staaten hat, gegen New York Gesetz.
"Wenn jeder Staat mit ihrer eigenen Definition kommt, es noch verwirrender für Lebensmittel-Unternehmen sowie Verbraucher wäre", sagte sie. Andrews darauf hingewiesen, dass die New Yorker Vorschlag Milchprodukte Wher gehören nicht
Optionen
| Boardmail an "snowhover" |
Wertpapier: Verity |
Optionen
| Boardmail an "snowhover" |
Wertpapier: Verity |
Zusammenfassung von Jim White
General Management – Sales & Marketing
Aggressive sales and marketing professional with extensive experience in engineered products. Decisive leader, strong business acumen, strategically focused, pragmatic, financially astute with proven track record. Experience includes General Management, Sales Management, Brand and Product Management, Strategic Planning, Research & Development, Advertising and Promotions Management.
Key Competencies
Motivate team of focused professionals to achieve strategic and fiscal goals
Lead strategic planning process to ensure all disciplines planning & goals tie plan
Analyzing market place and formulating business strategies and solutions
Managing, motivating and leading teams with experience using direct/outside sales force
Develop and execute multi-brand and distribution strategies
Organize ‘Process Centered’ organization teams
Lead strategic acquisition efforts
Enter turnaround environment, develop strategic and timely turnaround plans
Negotiations of large volume and complex sales agreements with leading mass retailers
Manage off-shore OEM strategy as part of an overall cost reduction effort
Recruitment and development of high potential, quality professionals
The following Wall Street Journal article is full of information on the ongoing shift to non-GMO food production and the company's market opportunity as farmers look to meeting the growing non-GMO demand.
There is a two minute video that is particularly informative (click on the link below to view the video and to click on the BLUE highlighted embedded links).
Other highlights and underlined emphasis are ours.
The GMO Fight Ripples Down the Food Chain
Facing Consumer Pressure, More Firms Are Jettisoning GMOs From Their Foods
By Annie Gasparro
Wall Street Journal
Updated Aug. 7, 2014 10:38 p.m. ET
Genetically modified foods, or GMOs, are in an estimated 80% of packaged foods. Some companies, like Ben & Jerry's, are trying to go GMO-free. But it's not easy.
(VIDEO at Article site at link below)
An animated explainer.
Two years ago, Ben & Jerry's Homemade Inc. initiated a plan to eliminate genetically modified ingredients from its ice cream, an effort to address a nascent consumer backlash and to fulfill its own environmental goals.
This fall, nearly a year behind schedule, it expects to finish phase one, affecting its flavorful "chunks and swirls" like cookie dough and caramel. The only part left to convert: the milk that makes ice cream itself. Thanks to the complexities of sourcing milk deemed free of genetically modified material, that could take five to 10 more years.
"There's a lot more that goes into it than people realize," said Rob Michalak, Ben & Jerry's director of social mission.
Two decades after the first genetically engineered seeds were sold commercially in the U.S., genetically modified organisms—the crops grown from such seeds—are the norm in the American diet, used to make ingredients in about 80% of packaged food, according to industry estimates. (Take a quiz about GMOs.)
Now an intensifying campaign, spearheaded by consumer and environmental advocacy groups like Green America, is causing a small but growing number of mainstream food makers to jettison genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. In addition to Ben & Jerry's, a subsidiary of Unilever ULVR.LN -0.25% PLC, General Mills Inc. GIS +0.90% this year started selling its original flavor Cheerios without GMOs. Post Holdings Inc. took the GMOs out of Grape-Nuts. Boulder Brands Inc. BDBD +2.45% 's Smart Balance has converted to non-GMO for its line of margarine and other spreads. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. CMG +1.62% is switching to non-GMO corn tortillas.
"Non-GMO" is one of the fastest-growing label trends on U.S. food packages, with sales of such items growing 28% last year to about $3 billion, according to market-research firm Nielsen. In a poll of nearly 1,200 U.S. consumers for The Wall Street Journal, Nielsen found that 61% of consumers had heard of GMOs and nearly half of those people said they avoid eating them. The biggest reason was because it "doesn't sound like something I should eat."
Grass roots campaigns in several states are pushing for mandatory labeling of foods with GMOs—something most food companies staunchly oppose. In May, Vermont adopted the first state law requiring companies to label GMO foods, starting in 2016.
The anti-GMO backlash reflects the deep skepticism that has taken root among many U.S. consumers toward the food industry and, in particular, its use of technology. Similar criticism has roiled other food ingredients including artificial sweeteners and finely textured beef, the treated meat product that critics dubbed "pink slime." The Web and social media have enabled consumer suspicions in such matters to coalesce into powerful movements that are forcing companies to respond.
Critics of GMOs—which have combined genes from different organisms to make some staple crops more durable—say there haven't been enough independent studies on the long-term health and environmental consequences of what they dub as "Frankenfood." They cite a handful of studies outside the U.S. that found toxic effects on animals fed genetically modified crops, and point out that 64 nations, including the European Union countries and China, require labeling of GMO products.
"If it turns out that after doing the studies, the scientific evidence shows GMOs are OK, I will change my mind," said Alisa Gravitz, a board member of the Non-GMO Project and chief executive of Green America. "But until then, why infect our entire food supply with this, when the early studies, the bona fide, peer-reviewed ones, throw up some red flags?"
For its part, the food industry says those studies are inconclusive and that none has shown any link to harm to humans. Proponents also point out that GMO crops used in the U.S.—which also include alfalfa, cotton, papaya and squash—have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which doesn't mandate labeling food that contains them. And even though the European Union requires labeling in member countries, it has approved many GMO foods as safe for consumption.
The debate aside, how companies like General Mills and Ben & Jerry's fare in dropping GMOs will offer a guide to others that are considering it. So far, the process has proved expensive, complex and politically dicey. For Ben & Jerry's, the premium for non-GMO ingredients ranged from 5% to 20%, reflecting how deeply rooted the technology is in the U.S. food chain. Ben & Jerry's says it plans to eat the costs rather than pass them on to customers.
But the forerunners are also encouraging farmers and ingredient manufacturers to increase the supply of non-GMO items, which could make it easier for food makers to follow.
Certainly, the stakes are large for companies like Monsanto Co. MON -0.04% and DuPont Co. DD -0.02% , which sell genetically engineered seeds to give crops traits like the ability to repel insects or resist weed killers. Today, more than 90% of corn, canola, soybean and sugar beet crops in the U.S. are genetically modified. Most of the produce Americans consume directly isn't GMO, but the crops are used to produce common ingredients like corn syrup, soy lecithin and more than half of the sugar consumed in the U.S.—plus the feed consumed by most of the nation's livestock.
In a statement, a spokeswoman for Monsanto said the company was confident about the safety of its seeds based on an "extensive body of rigorous testing" by company and independent researchers. DuPont pointed out the technology was backed by "regulatory agencies and scientific organizations around the world." The switch to GMO, proponents say, has led to higher crop yields and lower food costs.
When a big brand announces plans to drop GMOs, it stirs the debate further. GMO backers criticized General Mills for its change to Cheerios, saying it gave credence to misperceptions of the technology. Anti-GMO groups quickly started calling on General Mills to drop them from its Honey Nut Cheerios, too. The company said that changing the ingredients of its other cereals would be too difficult, but that GMO products are safe, adding that it offered the non-GMO variety to give consumers more options.
Ben & Jerry's, which ranks fifth among U.S. ice cream brands by sales, says it doesn't consider GMOs unsafe to humans either, but has always positioned itself as an environmentally friendly, socially progressive brand. Executives long wanted to drop GMOs, which they feel are part of industrialized, chemical-intensive agriculture that the company opposes, said Mr. Michalak, the social mission director. But the company didn't start discussing converting its flavors with suppliers until 2012.
That year, anti-GMO advocates got on the California ballot Proposition 37, a measure requiring GMO labeling similar to the one that later passed in Vermont. Food and agriculture companies poured more than $46 million into advertising to fight the measure, saying it would confuse consumers and raise food costs. The measure narrowly failed to pass, but it galvanized GMO opponents and put the industry on notice.
Ben & Jerry's didn't get directly involved in the California fight. But the battle "catalyzed the movement for us," said Cheryl Pinto, Ben & Jerry's ingredient sourcing manager. "When all the non-GMO hoopla hit the fan, we realized we better accelerate our conversion."
Aside from the milk, Ben & Jerry's said most ice cream ingredients were already non-GMO. Still, the company needed to check with suppliers and rigorously investigate all 110 ingredients it uses to make ice cream. Among the surprises: finding out a product couldn't be considered non-GMO if the supplier dusted the pan with cornstarch before baking. The supplier had to switch to rice starch.
"Our suppliers generally had to negotiate all the way down the supply chain to get to the farmer," Ms. Pinto said.
At the farm level, companies confront a chicken-or-egg-type conundrum. Food makers are hesitant to commit to dropping GMOs until they are sure they can find sufficient sources of non-GMO crops. But farmers are reluctant to switch seeds unless they know there will be guaranteed demand for non-GMO crops at a premium price.
Mercaris, a market data researcher, said prices last year for non-GMO corn averaged 51 cents per bushel higher than those for regular, GMO corn. That is a significant difference for farmers when the national average corn price was between $4 to $4.50. But some farmers also worry that dropping GMO seeds could lower their yields, meaning fewer bushels per acre.
Ben & Jerry's paid an average of 11% more for each ingredient that changed to a non-GMO version. In some cases that also included the higher cost of sourcing ingredients from Fair Trade suppliers—those certified as paying fair prices to producers in developing countries—which it did simultaneously.
The company says it can't quantify how much it spent on the non-GMO conversion in total. "It was really expensive," Ms. Pinto said. "Surcharges came in from transportation. Instead of buying beet sugar from down the road, you're buying cane sugar from much farther away." The conversion also required time and money to design new labeling and marketing and carry out legal reviews, she said.
For its Chubby Hubby ice cream, Ben & Jerry's had to change peanut butter pretzel suppliers because ConAgra Foods Inc., CAG +1.52% which bought the company that supplied the pretzels, was unwilling or unable to adhere to the non-GMO and Fair Trade requirements, according to people familiar with the situation. The change in suppliers also caused a shift from peanut butter-filled pretzels to peanut butter-coated ones, prompting some consumers to complain. ConAgra declined to comment.
To some degree, Ben & Jerry's process was simple relative to what some companies put themselves through. Unlike with organic foods—which also can't contain GMOs but must follow additional restrictions—the government sets no standard for what qualifies as "non-GMO." Companies seeking some authoritative imprimatur must go to third-party certifiers, usually the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit group founded by natural foods retailers. It vets applicants with an almost religious exactitude.
To gain its certification, Enjoy Life Foods LLC, a small Schiller Park, Ill.-based company that makes gluten- and allergen-free snacks, traced its honey to the hive. "We had to go to our honey suppliers, who went to the bee keepers, who had to actually determine how far the bees could fly to make sure they weren't cross-pollinating at any GMO fields," said Joel Warady, its chief sales and marketing officer.
He said the company thought it was done a year before it actually was, because Non-GMO Project kept coming with questions, including how far their bees flew. "I was like, 'Are you serious? I don't know,' " said Mr. Warady. " 'I didn't talk to the bees.' "
The Non-GMO Project, which has verified more than 17,000 products, says such lengths are necessary to ensure the bees aren't feeding on nectar or pollen from GMO crops. Thus, the organization requires a four-mile radius from the bee hives be clear of GMO fields.
"Consumers don't know how difficult it is, but they also don't care how difficult it is," said Mr. Warady. "They say, 'I want the food all natural. I want it to be non-GMO. I want it to taste great. And by the way, I don't want to pay any more for that. Figure it out.' " Enjoy Life Foods doesn't explicitly pass on the added costs, but its food is already priced at a premium to mainstream brands. For its part, Ben & Jerry's didn't seek Non-GMO Project certification, citing the complexity, but does use an auditor. "For us, our size and our scale, we had to be" realistic about where to start, Ms. Pinto said.
The number of big companies that have announced plans to drop GMOs is still small. Big industry groups like the Grocery Manufacturers Association say the trend is baseless, but they admit it is growing. They continue to lobby against GMO labeling and tout the benefits of the technology.
Still, industry executives say many of those companies are asking suppliers to develop non-GMO options so that they can be ready in case label mandates spread, which the companies fear could hurt products containing GMOs. Brian Sethness, senior account executive at Sethness Products Co., which supplies caramel coloring to major food and beverage companies, said the company is receiving more inquiries about non-GMO products than ever before. "Most haven't pulled the trigger yet though, they just want to know what's out there," he said.
For Ben & Jerry's, the biggest hurdle is milk. The vast majority of the feed given to dairy cows in the U.S. is made with GMO corn, soybeans and alfalfa. That makes it difficult to find non-GMO milk in quantities large enough for Ben & Jerry's, so the company hasn't committed to doing it. Labeling laws like the one passed in Vermont don't apply to meat or dairy derived from animals that consumed GMO animal feed, buying Ben & Jerry's more time. "We are having conversations with multiple stakeholders throughout the entire supply chain," Mr. Michalak said. "It's a slow process."
LINK: http://online.wsj.com/articles/...ples-down-the-food-chain-1407465378
Im folgende Wall Street Journal-Artikel ist voll von Informationen über die laufenden Umstellung auf GVO-Lebensmittelproduktion und Marktchancen des Unternehmens, wie Landwirte freuen, die wachsende Nachfrage der GVO.
Es gibt zwei Minuten video, das besonders informativ (Klicken Sie auf den Link unten, um das Video anzuzeigen und klicken auf die blau markierten eingebetteten Links).
Weitere Highlights und unterstrichenen Schwerpunkt sind unsere.
Die GVO-Kampf-Wellen nach unten die Nahrungskette
Gegenüber Verbraucher Druck, sind mehr Unternehmen GVO aus ihrer Nahrung ablassen
Von Annie Gasparro
Wall Street Journal
Aktualisiert 7. August 2014 10:38 Uhr ET
Gentechnisch veränderte Lebensmittel oder GVO sind schätzungsweise 80 % aller verpackten Lebensmitteln. Einige Unternehmen, wie Ben & Jerry, versuchen, GVO-frei zu gehen. Aber es ist nicht einfach.
(VIDEO am Artikel-Standort auf unten stehenden Link)
Eine animierte Erklärer.
Vor zwei Jahren initiierte Ben & Jerrys Homemade Inc. einen Plan zur Beseitigung von gentechnisch veränderter Zutaten aus seiner Eis, dem Bemühen um eine beginnende Verbraucher Gegenreaktion anzugehen und eine eigene Umweltziele zu erfüllen.
In diesem Herbst erwartet fast ein Jahr hinter dem Zeitplan zurück, es Phase einerseits Auswirkungen auf seine würzige "segmentiert und wirbelt" wie Plätzchenteig und Karamell zu beenden. Das einzige Teil Links konvertieren: die Milch, das Eis selbst Creme macht. Aufgrund der Komplexität der Beschaffung Milch als frei von genetisch verändertem Material, das fünf bis zehn weitere Jahre dauern könnte.
"Es gibt eine Menge mehr, die in es geht, als Menschen zu verwirklichen,", sagte Rob Michalak, Ben & Jerrys Direktor der sozialen Aufgabe.
Zwanzig Jahre nachdem die ersten gentechnisch veränderte Samen im Handel in den USA verkauft wurden genetisch veränderte Organismen — die angebauten aus dem Saatgut — sind die Norm der American Nahrung verwendet, um Zutaten in etwa 80 % der verpackte Lebensmittel, nach Schätzungen der Industrie. (Nehmen Sie ein Quiz über GVO.)
Jetzt verursacht eine Intensivierung Kampagne, angeführt von Verbraucher und Umwelt Interessengruppen wie Green Amerika, eine kleine, aber wachsende Anzahl der mainstream Lebensmittel-Hersteller zu gentechnisch veränderten Organismen oder GVO über Bord zu werfen. Neben Ben & Jerry, ein Tochterunternehmen der Unilever ULVR.LN 0,25 % PLC, General Mills Inc. GIS +0.90 % in diesem Jahr beginnt mit dem Verkauf seiner ursprünglichen Geschmack Cheerios ohne GVO. Post Holdings Inc. nahm die GVO aus Grape Nuts. Boulder Brands Inc. BDBD +2.45 hat % Smart Balance auf GVO-für die Reihe von Margarine und andere Aufstriche umgestellt. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. CMG +1.62 % ist die Umstellung auf GVO-Mais-Tortillas.
"Non-GVO" ist einer der am schnellsten wachsenden Label Trends auf US-Lebensmittel-Pakete, mit einem Umsatz von Geschäftsvorfällen, die wachsende 28 % im vergangenen Jahr auf rund $ 3 Milliarden, laut Marktforschungsunternehmen Nielsen. In einer Umfrage von fast 1.200 US-Verbraucher für das Wall Street Journal fand Nielsen, dass 61 % der Verbraucher von GVO gehört hatte und fast die Hälfte dieser Menschen sagte, dass sie sie essen. Der wichtigste Grund dafür war, weil es "wie etwas, was ich essen sollte klingt."
Grass Roots-Kampagnen in mehreren Staaten drängen auf die obligatorische Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln mit GVO — was die meisten Lebensmittel Unternehmen standhaft widersetzen. Im Mai nahm Vermont das erste staatliche Gesetz Gesellschaften, Label-GVO-Lebensmittel, beginnend im Jahr 2016.
Die Anti-GVO-Gegenreaktion spiegelt die tiefe Skepsis, die unter vielen US-Verbraucher in Richtung der Lebensmittelindustrie und insbesondere die Verwendung von Technologie eingenistet hat. Ähnliche Kritik wurde heftig setzen solle anderen Lebensmittelzutaten einschließlich künstliche Süßstoffe und fein strukturierte Rindfleisch, das behandeltem Fleisch-Produkt, dass Kritiker genannt "rosa Schleim." Das Web und social Media konnten Verbraucher Misstrauen in solchen Angelegenheiten zu, die zwingen die Unternehmen reagieren mächtige Bewegungen verschmelzen kann.
Kritiker von GVO — haltbarer schneidet die Gene von verschiedenen Organismen zu einige Grundnahrungsmittel kombiniert haben — sagen, es war nicht genug unabhängigen Studien über die langfristige Gesundheit und Umweltfolgen was sie als "Frankenfood." Dub Sie zitieren eine Handvoll Studien außerhalb der USA, die gefunden, dass toxische Wirkungen auf Tiere genetisch veränderte Pflanzen gefüttert, und darauf hinweisen, dass 64 Nationen, einschließlich der Länder der Europäischen Union und China, benötigen Kennzeichnung von GVO-Produkte.
"Wenn sich herausstellt, dass nachdem ich die Studien, die wissenschaftliche Erkenntnisse zeigt, dass GVO in Ordnung sind, ich meine Meinung ändern wird", sagte Alisa Gravitz, Vorstandsmitglied des Projektes Non-GVO und Chief Executive von Green Amerika. "Infizieren aber bis dann, warum unserer gesamten Nahrungsversorgung mit diesem, wenn einige rote Fahnen die frühen Studien, die Bona-Fide referierten sind, werfen?"
Für seinen Teil, sagt die Lebensmittelindustrie die Studien sind nicht eindeutig und gezeigt, dass keiner einen beliebigen Link, auf den Menschen zu Schaden. Befürworter auch darauf hinweisen, dass GVO-Pflanzen in der U.S.—which verwendet auch Luzerne, Baumwolle, Papaya und Squash gehören — von der Food and Drug Administration, die Kennzeichnung von Lebensmitteln, die sie enthält Mandat nicht bewilligt wurden. Und obwohl die Europäische Union Kennzeichnung in den Mitgliedsländern verlangt, hat es viele GVO-Lebensmittel als sicher für den Verzehr zugelassen.
Die Debatte beiseite, wie c
Sprechen BeendenDiese Übersetzung per E-Mail versendenDiese Übersetzung mit Bing suchenDas ist eine gute ÜbersetzungDies ist eine schlechte Übersetzung.
Würde sagen, die Spannung steigt, bis der Q Bericht kommt.
Entweder top oder hopp. Gehe von der ersten Variation aus.
Jetzt haben wir solange gewartet, da kommt es auf 3 Tage auch nicht mehr
darauf an.