You may have noticed lately that the prices at your local grocery store have been going up, and we tend to chalk it up to many things: rising gas prices, season, time of the month, or even the moon. Many of us will even pay more to shop in certain stores. When you think of grocery stores that cost a little for the ambience, you might think of Whole Foods. Just last week, the upscale grocery chain hit a rough patch when it was discovered that it has been overcharging its customers by a lot–and it has created problems for the grocery giant.

The Problem With Whole Foods

New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is investigating the grocery chain for “systemic overcharging for pre-packaged foods” that affected several branches of the store. It was something that they had been monitoring for a long time, and had even warned the stores about; however, they found on multiple trips that there were many problems and incorrect markings.

Some of these problems were outlined in the DCA’s report, including packages that were labeled with heavier weights than they actually were:

• Vegetable platters that were priced at about $20 a package. The packages were all different sizes, averaging about $2.50 over. One package in particular was overpriced by a whopping $6.15.
• Chicken tenders, a staple in many households, were priced at about $9.99 per pound, but were marked up by an average of $4.13.
• Berries, currently in season, were priced at $8.58 a package, but customers were overcharged by $1.15.

These charges were widespread, and though they may only look like a few dollars, they likely added up quickly over time. The DCA concluded that “New York City stores routinely overstated the weights of its pre-packaged products — including meats, dairy and baked goods — resulting in customers being overcharged.”

However, Whole Foods spokesman Michael Sinatra says that the DCA hasn’t actually confronted the store:

Despite our requests to the DCA, they have not provided evidence to back up their demands nor have they requested any additional information from us, but instead have taken this to the media to coerce us.

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just last year, Whole Foods had to pay an $800,000 fine in California for overcharging customers. So what can we do about this problem?

Rising Prices

The prices of different foods aren’t set by the government, like many think, but instead are a result of supply and demand. While the U.S. government does track prices, they are instead set by the wholesalers and growers of food.

One of the biggest causes of rising grocery costs is the prevalence of drought throughout the United States, especially in California. Drought affects everything from the crops that need water to survive to the cows that eat the grass. However, what the government can do is make sure that grocery stores are truthful when it comes to what they charge–and they can penalize those who don’t fall in line. In fact, that is exactly what they did to Whole Foods, which was fined “$950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for a subsequent violation. The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands.”

Other Issues

Think the problem of overcharging is limited to just Whole Foods? There are a litany of other offenses that grocery stores have committed. In 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court handed out a settlement of $1.1 million from Ralphs Grocery Co. because it overcharged its customers at the deli stand.

Some states, like North Carolina, allow for a small over- or under- charge on deli or weighted items. North Carolina allows a 5 percent discrepancy, but that hasn’t stopped the problem of overcharging. In fact, since November 2014, nine stores were fined by the state, including Dollar General, CVS, Target, and Walgreens, according to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

What Can You Do?

Apart from reporting any discrepancies that you think you see to the management of your local grocer, what are some of the things that you can do to keep yourself from being taken advantage of?

There are multiple things you can do to check whether or not you are being charged too much at the grocery store. The New York Department of Consumer Affairs suggests checking your receipt for what can and cannot be taxed. They even offer a quick link to a hot list of items that can be taxed.

The Today Show, which did a whole segment on the charges, suggests that you should actually weigh items yourself just to make sure. Most grocery stores will have electronic scales that are fairly easy to work and will help you out. They also suggest that you should make sure you are paying for the things you actually get, and not things like ice on frozen fish or packaging.

Another suggestion is that instead of focusing on getting your money ready or looking at the candy bar display, you should watch as the cashier rings up your food items. You will catch many mistakes that way, and often they will be corrected without a fight.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, grocery stores are in the same market that everyone else is in: they want to make money. While there are governmental teams out there that can help with these problems, it is largely up to consumers to make sure that everything’s kosher.

When you are at the grocery store, try to be present and pay attention to the things you are purchasing. Understand that sometimes prices will rise and fall, but they should always be around the same price. Don’t be afraid to ask workers if something seems off, as you might just save yourself a few bucks and the company thousands in fines.

Resources

CNN: Whole Foods Accused of Massive Overcharging

New York City Consumer Affairs: Department of Consumer Affairs Investigation Uncovers Systemic Overcharging for Pre-packaged Foods at City’s Whole Foods

Salon: Whole Foods is Ripping You Off (And it Has Been For Years)

Amarillo Globe-News: Several Factors Determine Food Prices at Grocery Stores

Class Action: Court Hands Victory to Workers in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Fox News: New York City Says Whole Foods is Overcharging Customers

Journal Sentinel: State Fines Four Stores For Overcharging Customers

NY Eatery: City Sting Reveals Whole Foods Has Been Overcharging New Yorkers Since 2010

,Today Show: Not Just Whole Foods: Beware Supermarket Overcharges

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Grocery Bill Breaking the Bank? It’s Not Just Whole Foods appeared first on Law Street.

Our adventures in genetics began with a monk named Gregor Mendel.  Mendel systematically bred pea plants to demonstrate the concepts behind genetic transmission before “gene” was even a word. He brandished a paint brush to cross breed plants that exhibited inheritance of exciting traits like wrinkly peas and inflated pods. Mendel was confined to pea plants in his search for potential traits. Today, we aren’t bound to the same species in our search for traits. We can bend the rules of nature as we know them using recombinant DNA technology. Welcome to the world of genetically modified organisms.

OMG…what are GMOs, anyway?

GMO is more than just a backwards OMG. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Other terms used to describe them include bioengineered, transgenic, genetically engineered (GE), or just genetically modified (GM). All of these terms describe an organism created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes that yield desirable traits from one organism to another. Technology has granted us power to cross species barriers, so unlike Mendel, we don’t have to choose traits from just one species.

How are traits transferred?

Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA technology to splice a piece of DNA from one species and insert it into the DNA of another species. Scientists identify the piece of DNA responsible for the desired trait, clone it, modify it to make it more compatible with the destination organism, and then insert it into the new organism. The modification occurs on a cellular level and the borrowed gene transforms to fit the destination organism’s DNA. Other methods involve repressing a gene that causes a certain characteristic, like they did to make a tomato that ripened after harvesting.

The Great Health Debate

Genetic engineering enables us to create crops with ideal characteristics, taking yields far beyond the possibilities of even the most resourceful farmers. Everyone must be thrilled! Not so much. In fact, many people are concerned about what GMOs might be doing to our health. Even with hazy understanding of GMOs, worries run rampant.

Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel to delve deep into society’s perceptions of hot-button issues.

What’s behind all of these worries?

No studies have proven that GMOs pose a significant health threat. There were some false alarms, but the studies were flagged for faulty mechanisms. In the absence of clear-cut science, why are people still worried about GMOs and their health?

Most people fear that a reason to be concerned just hasn’t been found yet, not that it doesn’t exist. Common misgivings are that gene transfer might also transfer antibiotic resistance and allergens, and that GMOs might not be as nutritious as their natural counterparts. While many of these apprehensions remain unsubstantiated, they’re still putting GMOs under scrutiny.

Are we right to worry about GMOs and our health? It turns out we may not know enough. Experts agree that the completed studies fall short in meriting total confidence. GMO testing has no minimal length requirement, even for crops cultivated on a large scale. Many point to a need for more long-term, quality, and transparent studies done on possible health effects of GMOs.

This article from University of California San Francisco quotes Patrice Sutton, a public health expert, to summarize concerns regarding GMOs and public health:

“Many people could rightly look at the existing science and see that it’s extremely weak,” Sutton said. “However, weak science does not prove safety; it just demonstrates that the public health impacts of GMOs are uncertain. It’s an overall public health principle that in the face of scientific uncertainty to expose everybody to something is a legitimate concern that should give us pause.”

Some contend that labeling food containing GMOs could fill in information gaps. After all, 97 percent of edible GMOs are cultivated in the United States and South America where no labeling requirement exists. Without labeling, long term studies and traceability are impossible. Which leads to our next point…

Should we label GMOs?

The FDA says “no” and hasn’t changed its mind since 1992. It adheres to substantial equivalence, the concept that a GMO doesn’t merit concern if it’s substantially equivalent to an existing food. This view was challenged in the court case, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The court sided with the FDA, deferring to  its technological expertise in this complicated matter.

These decisions did little to quell budding concerns from the public. Today, 93 percent of Americans desire GMO labels on food, according to an ABC News poll.

The “Yes” People

The “yes” people rally behind the “right to know” battlecry, using it as the basis for GMO labeling initiatives. They believe consumers have a right to know what their products contain and make informed decisions for themselves.

At present, GMO ingredients in food are credence qualities — those that a consumer cannot evaluate let alone leverage in their purchase decisions. Labeling proponents say consumers can’t make informed decisions at the point of purchase without labels.

Doctors have also chimed in on the “right to know,” asserting that GMO labeling could affect how they study and treat their patients. It could be challenging to detect potential health impacts, including food allergies, if consumers don’t know what they’re eating.

Of course the worries mentioned above — allergies, antibiotic resistance, and nutrition — also factor into the “yes” arguments. Without labeling, it will be taxing to discern if these worries ever manifest as realistic concerns.

The “No” People

The “no” people suppose that a consumer’s “right to know” could lead to a consumer’s “right to be confused.” They think labels might give people a false reason to worry since no evidence suggests GMOs are harmful to health. A label doesn’t guarantee an informed consumer, especially when people are already confused. Furthermore, some argue that a GMO label only treats a symptom of consumers’ grander problem with industrial farming techniques.

And there’s more where that came from. The “no” people have a whole laundry list of concerns surrounding GMO labeling. Here’s a preview:

• A GMO label may inspire worry, leading to decreased demand and therefore production. Poor market acceptance could prematurely cripple a promising technology.
• A GMO labeling requirement could cause costs to skyrocket — some estimate by 10 percent of an annual grocery bill.
• A GMO label isn’t necessary. Concerned consumers can just buy certified organic foods that prohibit the use of GMOs.
• The food system infrastructure in the United States would need to be overhauled if a GMO label is required. Producers would need to implement extensive tracking and reporting systems to accommodate the new requirement, possibly with unforeseen costs and consequences.

So that covers “yes” and “no,” but the question of GMO labeling is far too complex for  monosyllabic responses. The decision packs a load of potential economic, legal, and societal implications.

From lawyers to farmers, this NPR spot explores why voters in Colorado and Oregon are answering “yes” or “no” to the deceptively simple question of GMO labeling that they’re facing on upcoming ballots:

There you have the gist of both sides. Now, what decisions have actually been made concerning GMO labeling?

Decisions…decisions…

States are buzzing with proposals to require GMO labeling. The Center for Food Safety keeps track of the status of proposed bills on this page if you’re curious. So far, GMO labeling bills have been rejected in California and Washington. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws, but they lack potency until neighboring states also pass labeling laws. Vermont stands alone as the only state to pass a GMO labeling law, no neighbors required. The labels will start popping up in 2016. Or maybe not. Food manufacturing heavyweights have filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The groups purport that Vermont exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing costs and undermining the authority of federal agencies like the FDA. The results of the lawsuit will determine the temperature of GMO labeling measures in other states. Oregon is up to bat next as it makes a statewide ballot decision about GMO labeling on November 4, 2014.

Umm…what about the rest of the United States?

If you’re thinking state-by-state labeling laws could get complicated, you’re not alone. Two bills from the 113th Congress address GMO labeling on a nationwide scale. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in April 2014. The bill would require producers to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use of a bioengineered organism intended for consumption. It would then be up to the Secretary to determine if a label should be required based on whether or not there is a material difference between the bioengineered product and the traditional food. The bill would nullify any previous state laws passed requiring mandatory labeling. Some critics have called the bill the DARK or Deny Americans the Right to Know  act because many GMOs would likely escape labeling.
2. Conversely the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would require any food with one or more genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such or be deemed misbranded.

Some companies have decided to take GMO matters into their own hands. After all, the customer is always right!

GMO Labeling Trailblazers

Private companies don’t have to wait for a state or federal government to make company-wide GMO decisions. According to the NPD Group, 11 percent of primary shoppers would pay more for non-GMO products. Some companies commit to serving this hyper-concerned segment.

• General Mills announced its original Cheerios are GMO free.
• Whole Foods plans to move to full GMO transparency by 2018.
• Ben and Jerry’s fully supports mandatory GMO labeling and wants to remove GMOs from its products. The company believes happy ingredients = happy ice cream.

Will labels determine the fate of GMO ingredients?

Consumer concerns will remain regardless of decisions on GMO labeling. With most American consumers saying they deserve the right to know, the search for information will continue whether it’s slapped on the front of a package or not.

But GMO labeling decisions and subsequent market reactions could determine if GMO technology skyrockets or stalls.

Conclusion

What will GMOs mean to future generations? A Pandora’s Box of unnatural selection? A budding innovation that ends world hunger? Right now, we really don’t know. In this circumstance, not knowing simply means we have many more exciting things to learn in the years to come.

Resources

Choices: Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All the Controversy?

UC San Francisco: Genetically Modified Food Labeling Through the Lens of Public Health

National Geographic: The GMO Labeling Battle is Heating Up–Here’s Why

International Journal of Biological Sciences: Debate on GMOs Health Risks After Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

WebTV: Food Fight: The Debate Over GMOs in Colorado

Slate: The Price of Your Right to Know

World Health Organization: Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Denver Post: GMO Labeling Measure in Colorado Triggers Heated Debate

NPR: Voters Will Get Their Say On GMO Labeling In Colorado And Oregon

AgBioForum: Labeling Policy For GMOs: To Each His Own?

Colorado State University: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Center for Food Safety: Ben & Jerry’s, GE-Labeling Advocates Protest Anti-GE Labeling Bill

Politico: GMO Labeling Bill Would Trump States

Politico: Food Industry to Fire Preemptive GMO Strike

Los Angeles Times: General Mills Drops GMOs from Cheerios

Institute of Food Technologists: Most Consumers Won’t Pay More For Non-GMO Food

National Academies Press: Genetically Modified Organisms: An Ancient Practice on the Cusp

Science Meets Food: What You Need to Know About GMOs, GM Crops, and the Techniques of Modern Biotechnology

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yes or No? GMO Labeling Is Not That Simple appeared first on Law Street.