First of all, I disagree that "natural" means nothing....I was in charge of Standards at Wild Oats Markets and helped Alfalfa's write their standards and natural in our industry means a lot. It means that most unnecessary synthetic additives are removed from the products and it is a big step on the continuum from conventional to organic. As well, it is an entry point for consumers to enter the organic market.

It is a much larger issue to include nonGmO in the natural definition if you understand the evolution of natural over time. GMO is an agricultural issue and natural was not historically tied to the agricultural practices as organic was. Now that more consumers are aware, we need to tie the two together, but our dependence on GMO agriculture makes that difficult. So difficult, that there are non GMO-verified products that use GMO minor ingredients such as citric acid from corn. This is problematic for two reasons: NonGMO-verified products are verified with GMOminor ingredients and we are not creating an incentive for companies to create nonGMO minor ingredients in the supply chain. Rather than bashing natural, we should create a standard, educate consumers what that standard is and be honest that our dependence on GMOs in the greater system is the real problem. If we get labeling, we will eventually self-correct, but it will take at least 5 years to walk this back to where the activists want us to be.

While I respect Steve on these issues, they are far more complicated than presented here.

Your experience at WalMart is not necessarily typical. Ask the women who have filed anti-discrimination suits against the company over the years. The latest class action suit is just one of many. They have played fast and loose with insurance benefits, particularly for part-time store employees.

They open stores in small towns, drive local businesses out, and then open even bigger stores nearby, leaving the first retail space completely empty. In my hometown in WI, there is essentially only one viable place to shop left in the entire town--Walmart.

Just saw a news item yesterday that they got kudos from Michelle Obama for lowering sodium in their products, including their fresh meat products. It's easy when you pump your steaks with 12-15% salt/phosphate solutions to retain water. You can just remove the solution that most retailers add.

Yes, they have tremendous clout in the market and have done some good things, but low price is not everything. Don't dismiss all Boulderites as having an exaggerated sense of cool--many of them do inform themselves before choosing a store at which to shop.

Sean, I agree with you asking the question. But retail shopping behavior is complex and many factors go into making a decision about where to shop. I was a member of REI before I moved to Boulder, so I was happy to see REI move to Boulder. I believe Alf's and Lucky's are first and foremost neighborhood markets, unlike Trader's which has a unique set of items. They may be more of a destination like Costco's and like Costco, they can provide low prices precisely because of their national presence and particular business model. But low prices aren't everything. McGuckin's thrives not due to low prices, in spite of being close to Home Depot.

Wal-Mart is a whole 'nuther animal. It has wreaked devastation on local businesses everywhere they have gone. If you want to support business in China, that is the store to go to. There are plenty of Wal-Marts within driving distance of Boulder should any Boulderites want to shop there.

On another note, I had the same thought when I saw all the people who want What-A-Burger to come to CO. What is wrong with our own local chain, Good Times? It has great food, natural locally sourced meat and great frozen custard. The North Longmont branch went out of business, but the other national chains, including Jack in the Box, McDonald'sand Wendy's are thriving

Gregory Carey: Please add to your reading list another National Academies of Science publication Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century published in 2010. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12832 and Agriculture at a Crossroads by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAAKSTD). http://www.agassessment.org/reports/IAASTD/EN/Agr....

In both reports, it is agroecological systems farming that is deemed to be most sustainable and biotechnology plays a small role, at best, in supporting sustainable agriculture today. They point out many of the shortcomings in relying so heavily on biotechnology in agriculture.

The point is here is that you and others assert that these are the most highly regulated, tightly controlled and tested crops, yet in more than one instance, crops not approved for food use have gotten in the food supply and caused untold damages to farmers, food processors, and  retailers.  You blithely dismiss these issues as “mistakes happen,” even going so far as to say that the victims actually orchestrated this for a payoff. 

Pollen drift is an issue that has not been adequately addressed with these crops, hence opposition by large food companies to the new amylase corn. Lack of adherence to appropriate buffers have contributed to pest resistance and lack of appropriate use of glyphosate has caused  weed resistance and glyphosate residues in the air, water and residual in the soil.  None of this was going to happen with proper use and regulation we were told.  The answer by the USDA is to continue to approve more biotech crops, even ones that allow us to return to more toxic pesticides, without adequately addressing deficiencies in the current system. 

You are correct, it was not likely due to pollen drift, but like the Starlink corn issue in the early 90s, the industry did not keep crops not approved for human use out of the food supply. Once again, with absolutely no evidence, you blame the victims rather than admitting that a large company screws up sometimes and doesn't want to admit it to the USDA. The losses were huge for these rice farmers and are continuing, so coexistence isn't just about pollen drift.

There is no universal acceptance, even amongst those that support biotech, that pollen drift is not an issue. Read about the opposition to the GM amylase corn that was recently approved. It is designed to break corn down in the field for more efficient biofuels production but if it contaminates food grade corn, it will make it unfit for processed foods. http://www.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/agric...

Read about the recent $750 million rice settlement to farmers by Bayer CropScience. http://www.ricelitigation.com/. The orginail lawsuit may be found at http://www.ricelitigation.com/images/stories/file....

Experimental Liberty Link rice not only contaminated the crops, but also the seed and Bayer did not inform the USDA when they knew of it. Farmers lost untold millions because their long grain rice was not accepted by Europe and Japan and the market has remained depressed. Doesn't sound like good coexistence to me.

Again, I ask for specific examples 123, and you can't provide them. You apparently have a script that you cut and paste from with referenced material that is drawn from pro-GMO sources which you keep repeating ad nauseum. If you are asked a question off your script, you are at a loss to respond. You accuse others of posting misinformation without real support--seems to me the pot is calling the kettle black.

"The county and larger national polls show support for GMOs" Let's see, I pointed out that the county polls did not show that and I asked for support for which national polls show support, but no answer. If you are asked something off of your script, you can't produce it. Why is that?

Exactly.  There  are no consumer benefits, only benefits to farmers and seed/herbicide companies.  So if consumers are skeptical about the technology, the benefits do not outweigh the risks for many.