by True Activist
Even if you make responsible food choices, there’s a lot you likely don’t know about the food you’re consuming…
By Dr. Edward F. / The Sleuth Journal
You probably want to know what’s actually in what you’re eating, right? Of course you do. That’s probably why you read the ingredients label. But even if you’re making responsible choices, there still might be more to that meal than you realize. There’s a movement that’s trying to keep you in the dark about genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), not to mention a host of other nasties in your food. You’ll want to stick around while I tell you seven things that you should really know about GMOs.
1. Money is Being Spent to Ensure You Stay Uninformed
Giant corporations like Dupont and Monsanto spent millions of dollars recently in Colorado and Oregon to thwart labeling campaigns that would list genetically-modified ingredients. [1] In Colorado, for example, these two giants outspent supporters of GMO labeling by 22-1. These labeling movements are all part of the ‘Right to Know’ campaigns, but apparently manufacturers don’t feel Americans need to know what’s in their food.
2. GMO Labels Wouldn’t Cost Much
Those same labels these corporations are so afraid of would actually cost the taxpayer a tiny amount—about two dollars a year—but it’s not really about spreading the cost to the consumer. [2] Corporations want to turn a profit, and if the product you’ve been buying for years suddenly proclaims that is has GMOs, you’ll likely stop buying it. In an effort to stop the pro-GM labeling, TV ads even tried to tell voters that these labels would cost them between $400 and $800 dollars a year. An ECONorthwest report, however, proved that inflated figure wrong. [3]
3. Major Food Companies are Willfully Ignorant
General Mills was in the news recently when GMOs were taken out of Cheerios, so the next logical step should have been to take GMOs out of the entire cereal lineup. Well, that didn’t happen for two main reasons: removing GMOs from Cheerios hasn’t translated to higher sales, and the company still doesn’t fully believe GMOs aren’t safe. As almost every company shareholder voted against removing GMOs, I think it boils down to what the company thinks will make the most money. This focus on profit is seen in the policies of many of the food giants. Companies aren’t going to ban GMOs when they’re making money.
4. Not All Requests for GMO-Free are Being Ignored
Lately, there’s been so many anti-GMO stances that some progressive and forward thinking companies are jumping on the non-GMO bandwagon. In the case of a vegetable that’s a cross between a Brussels sprout and kale, a non-GMO label is arguable. Hybrid plants are created when you crossbreed two compatible plants; no DNA is genetically modified or enhanced, but some people might still consider a hybrid a GMO. [4] The bottom line is most companies want to make money, and the anti-GMO movement is a big moneymaker.
5. GMO-Free Can Be a Good Business Model
For large and small companies, profits matter. Consider, though, the power of the organic food market right now. Everyone wants organic, and farmers and ranchers are taking note. Using organic practices can add as much as $100 to a head of cattle, so from a market standpoint, the organic movement makes sense. [5] While most farmers and ranchers are driven by profits, we, as the consumers, are presented with more organic and non-GMO options.
6. “Natural” Doesn’t Mean GMO-Free
Let’s talk again about those labels on your food. Have you ever bought something that claimed it was ‘natural’ without it mentioning anything about GMOs? [6] Buyer beware! A recent study found that a lot of those products actually do contain GMOs. Consumer Reports tested over 80 different processed foods with corn or soy and found most of them had GMO ingredients. [7] [8] If you want to make sure you aren’t getting genetically-modified corn or soy, look for non-GMO or organic labels.
7. GMOs Have Created a Crisis
Not only are GMOs bad for our health, genetically-modified crops are causing a big land crisis. Corn and soy are two crops that are genetically modified to tolerate multiple herbicides; however, what we’re left with is two-fold: crops dosed heavily with herbicides and superweeds! These superweeds are resistant to all the common herbicides and are quickly becoming an issue–especially for farmers in the southern US where most of these weeds grow. It’s estimated that almost 70 million acres of U.S farmlands are now infested with superweeds, and no one knows how to handle it. [9]
The Bottom Line: Avoid GMOs!
So yes, there are a lot of reasons to avoid GMOs, and many businesses are taking note of what consumers want and making adjustments. Progress is slow–and in some cases nonexistent–but eventually there will be change. After all, we have the right to know what’s in our food.
What about you? What do you think about GMOs? Leave a comment below and share your thoughts.
References:
- 1Goldenberg, S. Pro-GM labelling campaign hugely outspent in Colorado and Oregon ballot. The Guardian.
- 2Tims, D. Median GMO labeling would cost consumers $2.30 per year: New pro-Measure 92 study. The Oregonian.
- 3ECONorthwest. GE FOODS LABELING COST STUDY FINDINGS. Consumers Union.
- 4Sheets, C. Companies Pursuing Non-GMO Products For Competitive Edge, Experts Say. International Business Times.
- 5Ortiz, E. Market speaks louder than science: GMO-free animals a good business model. The Sacramento Bee.
- 6Gillam, C. U.S. foods labeled ‘natural’ often contain GMOs, group reports. Reuters.
- 7Consumer Reports. Food Safety and Sustainability Center Report on GMOs in Corn and Soy. Consumer Reports.
- 8Consumer Reports. Food Safety and Sustainability Center Test Results of GMOs in Corn and Soy. Consumer Reports.
- 9Keim, B. New Generation of GM Crops Puts Agriculture in a ‘Crisis Situation’. Wired.
Dr. Edward F. Group III, DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM has studied natural healing methods for over 20 years and now teaches individuals and practitioners all around the world. He no longer sees patients but solely concentrates on spreading the word of health and wellness to the global community. Under his leadership, Global Healing Center, Inc. has earned recognition as one of the largest alternative, natural and organic health resources on the Internet.
I’m a scientist, and I can tell you most (not all) statements in this article are wrong. I’m disappointed anonymous community! I though at lest you guys check your facts before writing bullshit 🙁
Really? OK, if that’s so, then state the inconsistencies. Unless you are a supporter of Monsanto or Dupont trying to spread misinformation… Protecting your company… Just saying.. if you aren’t willing to correct the article, then stop trolling
Actually as your the author of this article its your responsibility to back up your own claims with facts and references (which are noticeably absent for backing up your claim of ‘Not only are GMOs bad for our health’). GMO’s could easily be the fix to this worlds food production issue that allows us to not have to use every single bit of land for food production and protect more natural environments. If we all got behind them and focused our efforts on ensuring their safety and doing studies on how to best utilize them it would far beat near pointless scaremongering.
How is this trolling?
“Unless you are a supporter of Monsanto or Dupont trying to spread misinformation…protecting your company” what evidence do you have for this? Just ranting about Monsanto and calling people Monsanto stooges for merely disagreeing makes you look uninformed and stupid. Like a troll.
If you make claims like “Not only are GMOs bad for our health” then you need to prove them. If you write an article claiming something then you need to prove it.
Yes food is about money, as everything is, but that’s about as accurate as this gets. GMOs are not all bad, or all good, or all anything. We have had some GMOs for hundreds of years and the world hasn’t turned into dawn of the Dead yet. Calm ur tits and pay attention to science, not hokey, badly informed journalism
I swear that there isn’t a staff writer for AnonHQ who is a) over 12 years old b) remotely scientific or c) remotely qualified as a journalist
we may have had cross breeding of compatible foods for 100’s of years, but not until recent years did anyone think it is ok to put salmon genes in tomatoes, or insecticides in corn…
After reading this article I really think Anonymous, who started out with good intentions, is now becoming more of a corrupt propaganda machine to the big business lobbyists such as Greenpeace who score enormous profits in the hundreds of millions based on fear mongering such as this.
Here’s a fact:
1. Can an Evil Scientist make evil GMOs for humanity? Yes
2. Can a good Scientist make good GMOs that benefit humanity? Yes
The same can be said for so many different advances in Science. Like missiles can be used for destruction, but also for space exploration.
“Scientist”… you would be the first scientist I read that would possess such poor language.
haha funny. Have you ever considered that English isn’t my mother tongue and that I’m not a machine, thus I make mistakes? Sorry for being human. Clearly you haven’t met many scientists.
Matt – If you are going to argue the article, you need to back yourself up with facts. Your argument is getting weak when you resort to fault finding instead of writing facts. If you have a factual argument you need to use it. Or just keep quiet
So 6/7 arguments against GMO is going to be against labeling and how “it’s worse than natural”? I’m sorry but having “superweeds” as your only direct argument against GMOs is nothing but a pathetic outcry for a cause similar to the anti-vacciners.
A more real argument against GMOs could’ve been against glyphosphate resistant wheat. That’s a GMO I’m sceptical to eating, as high levels of glyphosphate has been documented to be bad to ingest. This is however one bad seed amongst a vast array of usefull GMOs.
What most people don’t think of when it comes to GM food vs regular vs organic food, is that organic food is the least environment friendly of the three and GM food the most friendly.
The main reason to this being that organic food has a yeald of around 80% (as low as 50% sometimes) of regular crops. On a large scale, this implies that to produce the same ammount of food as we do today, but organically instead, we’d have to accept further deforrestation for crop production worldwide. Now take into account that over 38% of all land is used for agriulture (from less than 1% on Greenland to over 80% in Uruguay). Now increase that area by 20-50% to account for extra land needed to supply the same ammount of food, but organically. Environmentally friendly? I think not.
“You are more likely to get hit by an asteroid than to get hurt by GM food” (quote by Mark Lynas, a former GMO protester), while there are several deaths linked to organic food every year because of bacteria (mainly E. coli and Salmonella) in the food from manure being used as fertilizer in organic crops.
There are too many ignorants protesting GMOs that needs to get their facts straight. It can be compared to the whole vaccine/big pharma nonsense. People will come around, the facts just needs to be a part of the public opinion. It’s a shame that so many on anonhq blindly follow any protest rally without doing some critical fact checking first.
As yet another scientist (retired), I’m delighted to see these responses to deliberate misdirection. By the way folks,anyone know how the mutagenicity of glyphosate compares to endogenous plant pesticides (Ames and Gold type assessments)?
The main point here is about information and the right too choose. Whether you believe GMO’s are safe or not (which I don’t)the food we eat should provide us with that information regardless. It is a sad society we live in when we can decide too not tell someone that what your eating might not be good for you because of a profit margin.
People: Please get your head out of the sand, I beg you.
hasn’t the planet been genetically modifying our food for the last 300 million years?
I was always a supporter of Anonymous but this is a crock of sh$t. At least do some research before writing an article.
At least give credit to the illustrator for that great piece of art you’re using to promote your article (who nows if it’s with or without permission). Show some respect!