# data[].attributes.body
Campbell labels will put on Gmo labels so people can know what is in there food. They also put I don't contain gmos or made with gmos stickers on foods. One last reason they put on gmo labels is so if you are allergic to what they used to edit it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Credit... Tony Cenicola/The New York Times

Breaking from its industry rivals, Campbell Soup will become the first major food company to begin disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients like corn, soy and sugar beets in its products.

The company, the maker of brands like Pepperidge Farm, Prego, Plum Organics and V8 in addition to its namesake soups, is taking the unusual step - and possibly risking sales by alienating consumers averse to genetically modified organisms - as big food corporations face increasing pressure to be more open about their use of such ingredients.

Food companies have begun printing labels to comply with a new labeling law in Vermont, which has become a battleground over labeling that other states have been watching closely. Beginning in July, Vermont will require disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients, a measure opposed by most major food companies, which are seeking to supersede any state's legislation with a voluntary federal solution.

Campbell is also breaking with its peers by calling for federal action to make mandatory a uniform labeling system of foods that contain such ingredients, commonly known as G. M.O. labeling, said Denise Morrison, chief executive of Campbell.

"We're optimistic that a federal solution can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, but if that's not the case, we're preparing to label all our products across the portfolio," Ms. Morrison said in an interview.

She said about three-quarters of the company's products contained ingredients derived from corn, canola, soybeans or sugar beets, the four largest genetically engineered crops. The change in labeling is expected to take 12 to 18 months.

The first example provided by the company, for a SpaghettiO's label prepared for Vermont, is sparsely worded and does not specify which individual ingredients are genetically altered. It simply states at the bottom of the label: "Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit WhatsinMyFood.com."

Other companies have reformulated a handful of products to replace such ingredients. General Mills now produces non-G.M.O. Cheerios, and others have put labels on some products verifying that they contain no genetically engineered components, like Tropicana juices.

But none have gone as far as Campbell, whose move is reminiscent of that by Whole Foods Markets, which almost three years ago created an uproar when it announced that, as of 2018, it would require all products sold in its stores to have labels disclosing the presence of ingredients from genetically altered crops.

More mainstream grocers like Kroger and Safeway have moved to highlight their selection of organic products, which by law cannot contain any genetically modified ingredients, and have quietly urged big food manufacturers not to oppose demands for G.M.O. labeling.

The number of products verified by the Non-GMO Project, a nonprofit group that certifies foods that are free of ingredients from genetically engineered sources, is now in the tens of thousands.

But many companies have long argued that a patchwork of state laws with different requirements for G.M.O. labeling will be cumbersome and expensive, and the quirks in the Vermont law are making their case.

Ms. Morrison noted, for example, that in Vermont, the cans of SpaghettiOs will have to be wrapped in one label stating that the product contains ingredients from genetically engineered sources because they fall under the jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration. But Campbell does not have to disclose that SpaghettiOs with Meatballs contains such ingredients because that product is governed by the Department of Agriculture - and the Vermont law applies only to products overseen by the F.D.A.

Image

Campbell is calling for mandatory labeling of products that use ingredients from G.M.O. crops. Credit... Campbell Soup Company

"A state-by-state patchwork of laws could be incredibly costly not only for our company but for the entire industry," Ms. Morrison said. "That's why we want the federal government to come up with a national standard that is mandatory."

Campbell will seek advice from the Department of Agriculture and the F.D.A. about what language it might use on its packaging. In an interview with The Des Moines Register in December, Tom Vilsack, the agriculture secretary, said he planned to hold a meeting with food companies and others in the hope of reaching a compromise before the Vermont law goes into effect.

"I'm going to challenge them to get this thing fixed," Mr. Vilsack told The Register, adding that he was worried about "chaos in the market" if other states follow suit. "That will cost the industry a substantial amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, and it will ultimately end up costing the consumer," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Agriculture Department said no date had been set for the meeting, nor had any decisions been made about who would attend.

Ms. Morrison said that complying with Vermont's law was expensive but that establishment of a national mandatory labeling standard to take effect over a period of time would allow companies to work the changes into their business operations with little cost. She noted that adoption of the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act, which required companies to add nutritional information to their labels, did not significantly raise costs.

Ms. Morrison said she could not speculate on how the move to label all of Campbell's products might affect the company's sales. In 2011, food manufacturers themselves introduced a program called Facts Up Front to make information about the amount of sugar, salt, fat and calories in their products even more obvious by putting it out front in an easy-to-read format, which had no notable impact on sales.

Last year, Campbell created the website that offers information about the ingredients in its products and how they are used, including those items that come from genetically engineered crops.

It discloses, for instance, that among the ingredients in Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup, the vegetable oil, monosodium glutamate and modified food starch may come from genetically engineered sources. The website has had no apparent impact on sales, according to a company spokeswoman.

"We've always believed consumers have a right to know what's in their food," Ms. Morrison said. "We know that 92 percent of Americans support G.M.O. labeling, and transparency is a critical part of our purpose."

Phil Lempert, a food industry expert and founder of Supermarketguru.com, said it could be risky for a company to disclose genetically altered ingredients. "I think it would get a lot of credit for transparency and that its stock would get a pop, if it were publicly traded," Mr. Lempert said. "But I think a consumer could be confused by it and put the product back on the shelf and grab something else."

Mr. Lempert and other marketing experts recommended that the company use clear language to inform its consumers.

"We're in uncharted territory here," said Carl Jorgensen, director of global consumer strategy and wellness at Daymon Worldwide, a consulting firm. While studies have shown that consumers favor such labeling, he said he did not know of data collected on the impact of labels on sales.

Campbell joined other major food companies in fighting efforts to impose mandatory labeling in California and Washington State, spending more than $1 million, according to the Environmental Working Group. It is also a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that has spent millions trying to get a bill passed in Congress that would make labeling voluntary and pre-empt state labeling efforts.

"We will withdraw from any coalition that doesn't support mandatory labeling," Ms. Morrison said. "We were involved in fighting the state ballots in California and Washington out of concern over a state-by-state patchwork, yet we didn't participate in the fights in any other state beyond those. Any money we did spend after that was in support of seeking a federal solution."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Campbell Labels Will Disclose G.M.O. Ingredients

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Breaking from its industry rivals, Campbell Soup will become the first major food company to begin disclosing the presence of genetically engineered ingredients like corn, soy and sugar beets in its products.

# data[].attributes.body
Gmos dont always do what they are supposed to, they can cause health effects, or affect other crops that were not meant to have a gmo,

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The National Academy of Sciences - probably the country's most prestigious scientific group - has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

The report marks an anniversary. Twenty years ago, farmers started growing soybeans that had been genetically modified to tolerate the popular weedkiller known as Roundup and corn that contains a protein, extracted from bacteria, that kills some insect pests.

In the years since, arguments about these crops have grown so contentious that the National Academy can't be sure that people will believe whatever it has to say on the topic.

Even before this report came out, an anti-GMO group called Food & Water Watch attacked it. The group accused some members of the committee that prepared the report of receiving research funding from biotech companies, or having other ties to the industry.

"The makeup of the panel is pretty clear. People are coming in with a perspective that is pro-genetically engineered crop," says Patty Lovera, assistant director of Food & Water Watch.

The preemptive attack frustrates Fred Gould, the North Carolina State University scientist who chaired the committee. Gould has been known in the past as a GMO critic. He has pushed for restrictions on the planting of some GMO crops. "I have not been a darling of the industry. As a matter of fact, they denied me seeds and plants to do my experiments," he says.

Gould says that over the two years that he and the other members of this committee worked on this report, they had one important rule: "If you had an opinion, you had to back it up with data. If you didn't have the data, it didn't go into the report."

The report tries to answer a long list of questions about GMOs, involving nutrition, environmental effects, effects on the farm economy and monopoly control over seeds.

The most basic conclusion: There's no evidence that GMOs are risky to eat.

The committee also found that GMOs, as promised, have allowed farmers of some crops to spray less insecticide to protect their crops - although there's a risk that the GMO crops may not work as well in the future, because insects could develop resistance to them. Also, there's no evidence that GMOs have reduced the amount of wild plant and insect life on farms.

And the report found that some claims about the benefits of GMOs have been exaggerated.

For instance, the productivity of crops has been increasing for a century, and that didn't change when GMOs came along. "The expectation from some of the [GMO] proponents was that we need genetic engineering to feed the world, and we're going to use genetic engineering to make that increase in yield go up faster. We saw no evidence of that," Gould says.

The report urges federal agencies to change the way they regulate GMOs. Up to now, companies have introduced just a small number of different kinds of genetically modified crops. That could change very soon, because there's new technology, called gene editing, that isn't exactly genetic engineering, but it's not traditional plant breeding, either.

The report urges regulators to look at all new crops, no matter how they're created, if they "have novelty and the possibility of some kind of risk associated with them," Gould says.

Many scientists who got their first look at the report Tuesday praised it. Some called it the most comprehensive review of GMOs that anyone, so far, has carried out.

But longtime critics of GMOs were less impressed.

Patty Lovera, from Food & Water Watch, the group that attacked the National Academy's committee for being too closely linked to industry, took a quick look at the report and didn't see much that seemed new. "It's not the final word" on GMOs, she says.

The National Academy of Sciences is trying to make this report more easily accessible to the public. It has set up a website where people can read the report and also look up the sections that address specific comments that were submitted by the public.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
GMOs Are Safe, But Don't Always Deliver On Promises, Top Scientists Say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The National Academy of Sciences - probably the country's most prestigious scientific group - has reaffirmed its judgment that GMOs are safe to eat. But the group's new report struck a different tone from previous ones, with much more space devoted to concerns about genetically modified foods, including social and economic ones.

# data[].attributes.body
A chinese company made a pet pig to stay smaller. They also made the pigs smaller so they don't grow older and get bigger. Another reason they changed the pigs is to study diseases for humans. The last reason they edited the pigs is so there are more room for animals at shelters.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Chinese company edits pig DNA, develops piglets that will stay pet-sized

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's like a lapdog, but it's a pig. A Chinese biotech company has edited porcine genes so these pigs will not get too big. Available only in China, each tiny pig carries a hefty price tag of $1,600.

# data[].attributes.body
Gmo potatoes can survive a potato disease. Gmo potatoes also help farmer sell more perfect potatoes. most people think Gmos are good to eat. Lastly they can survive pesticides which can help farmers use less on helping plants survive pesticides.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Potato company engineers spuds that are resistant to late blight disease