Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Food Companies Seeking NON-GMO Ingredients

Posted 11 months ago on May 27, 2013, 10:17 p.m. EST by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

In response to recent activism and revelations of just how dangerous GMO food really are, food companies big and small starting to aggressively source ingredients that are not genetically modified.

But, these companies are struggling to replace genetically modified ingredients with conventional ones because of such proliferation of these gene-altered ingredients in the world food supply.

Pressure is also rapidly growing to label products made from GMOs. In Connecticut, Vermont and Maine, at least one chamber of the state legislature has approved bills that would require the labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, and similar legislation is pending in more than two dozen other states. This past weekend, rallies were held around the globe against producers of genetically altered ingredients, and consumers are threatening to boycott products that are not labeled.

And so, for many businesses, the pressing concern is just what it will take to gain certification as Non-GMO.

Lizanne Falsetto knew two years ago that she had to change how her company, ThinkThin, made Crunch snack bars. Her largest buyer, Whole Foods Market, wanted more products without genetically engineered ingredients – and her bars had them. Ms. Falsetto did not know how difficult it would be to acquire non-G.M.O. ingredients.

more>> http://www.undergroundhealth.com/food-companies-seeking-non-gmo-ingredients/

25 Comments

25 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

The Non-GMO Project was until recently the only group offering certification, and demand for its services has soared. Roughly 180 companies inquired about how to gain certification last October, when California tried to require labeling (the initiative was later voted down), according to Megan Westgate, co-founder and executive director of the Non-GMO Project.

Nearly 300 more signed up in March, after Whole Foods announced that all products sold in its stores would have to be labeled to describe genetically engineered contents,

http://www.nongmoproject.org/

[-] 0 points by Narley (-634) 11 months ago

OK, I’m playing devil’s advocate here, but is there any scientific proof GMO is bad for you? I mean, Is it possible we’re sounding a false alarm?

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (5688) from St Louis, MO 11 months ago
[-] 3 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 11 months ago

there is a lot of evidence & simple common sense that spraying roundup all over the planet is bad for everything....

[-] -2 points by StacyBartell (-10) 10 months ago

Roundup is a pesticide, not a GMO. And no, there's no credible scientific evidence that GMO foods are bad for you. The opposite is true.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

I guess you don't read much... http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

[-] -2 points by StacyBartell (-10) 10 months ago

Again, Roundup is not a GMO, and Glyphosate isn't either. The problem is not that I don't read, but most likely that you don't understand what you read.

The danger referenced in your link is related to a pesticide, not a GMO. Pesticides are bad, we've known this before Roundup even existed.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

ok... I guess maybe you can't follow a discussion....

there is Huge evidence that the GMO's (not pesticide's) that is designed around the use of pesticides is bad for not only people but also for plants & animals .... again.... read http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

the report is associated with ; Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA ....

if MIT is not considered credible ... I guess we'll wait for Fox to jump on board for you ...

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by StacyBartell (-10) 10 months ago

GMO foods aren't dangerous.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

I guess you don't read much... http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416

[-] -1 points by StacyBartell (-10) 10 months ago

That link references an ingredient found in a a pesticide, not a GMO. The problem is not that I don't read, but that you fail to understand what you read.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago
  1. Dona A, Arvanitoyannis IS. Health risks of genetically modified foods. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2009; 49(2): 164–175.

  2. Hines FA. Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PR–152; FDA Number FMF–000526): Pathology Branch’s evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677–002, 677–004, and 677–005) and an Expert Panel’s report. US Department of Health & Human Services. 16 June 1993. http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs/17/view1.html

  3. Pusztai A. Witness Brief – Flavr Savr tomato study in Final Report (IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616 USA) cited by Dr Arpad Pusztai before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification; 2000.

  4. Prescott VE, Campbell PM, Moore A, et al. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem. 16 Nov 2005; 53(23): 9023–9030.

  5. Malatesta M, Biggiogera M, Manuali E, Rocchi MBL, Baldelli B, Gazzanelli G. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry. Oct-Dec 2003; 47: 385–388.

  6. Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct. Aug 2002; 27(4): 173–180.

  7. Vecchio L, Cisterna B, Malatesta M, Martin TE, Biggiogera M. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem. Oct-Dec 2004; 48(4): 448-454.

  8. Malatesta M, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130: 967–977.

  9. Tudisco R, Lombardi P, Bovera F, et al. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: Detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science. 2006; 82: 193–199.

  10. Brasil FB, Soares LL, Faria TS, Boaventura GT, Sampaio FJ, Ramos CF. The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken). Apr 2009; 292(4): 587–594.

  11. Séralini GE, Mesnage R, Clair E, Gress S, de Vendômois JS, Cellier D. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: Present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe. 2011; 23(10).

  12. Séralini GE, Cellier D, Spiroux de Vendomois J. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. May 2007; 52(4): 596–602.

more>> http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/references-to-section-3

[-] -2 points by StaceBarnette (-17) 10 months ago

Oh, I see what's going on. You're getting fooled by "natural" product endorsers like earthopensource.org who publish old research even though it has been discounted in the scientific community.

The field of GMO research moves at a very quick pace. You need to keep up with the latest changes. Here's a good article for you.

http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-health-risks-what-scientific-evidence-says-1161099

The above article is less than two months old, and is not from a biased source.


Back to your post:

For example, the last two research papers #11, #12, both by Séralini GE and friends have been discredited. The experiments were not done properly. In the case of #12, they were using a species of modified rats prone to getting cancer.

If you are interested in this subject, I suggest you stay up to date by reading genetic peer reviewed journals. New discoveries are being made all the time. Also, you shouldn't use biased sources like natural product websites to find links to proper research. They often hide the research they don't like, and push research they like even though it's been discredited. It's better to read peer reviewed journals directly.

Finally, you must realize that if a study like #12 was correct in its findings, a study done 6 years ago, then the FDA would of put a hold on the GMO's causing the problem. They have not because the study was discredited by the scientific community only weeks after it came out.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

http://www.ibtimes.com/gmo-health-risks-what-scientific-evidence-says-1161099 The above article is less than two months old, and is not from a biased source.

hehehehe... yeah right... a business publication that is not biased

[-] -2 points by StaceBarnette (-17) 10 months ago

Read current research. Stay up to date. The research articles you pointed to have been discounted. It's a fast moving field. You need to stay up to date.

The danger is processed foods with preservatives and pesticides.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

The research articles you pointed to have been discounted.

stop lying ....

and sell your monsanto stock... before it's to late

[-] -1 points by StaceBarnette (-17) 10 months ago

But, they have. Anybody who's interested can look it up. Calling me a liar won't change that. The information is out there.

[-] 2 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 10 months ago

you look it up... back up your statements with links

[-] -2 points by StaceBarnette (-17) 10 months ago

I did. Read the article I posted. It offers links to research that discredits what you posted. I'm not here to change your mind. If you don't want to make the effort to educate yourself, I can't change that.