National Geographic News
Local activist Kalli Smith energizes a crowd of more than 150 protestors along Water Street in downtown Wilmington, N. C.,  as a Worldwide protest against Monsanto and Genetically Modified Foods reaches the Cape Fear Region Saturday afternoon, May 25, 2013.

Activist Kalli Smith leads a crowd of more than 150 protesters in Wilmington, N.C., as part of a worldwide protest against Monsanto and GMOs in May 2013.

PHOTOGRAPH BY JEFF JANOWSKI, AP    

Laura Parker

for National Geographic

Published January 11, 2014

For food activists like Dave Murphy, founder of Food Democracy Now, the news that Cheerios changed its recipe and will no longer contain any genetically modified ingredients couldn't have come at a more opportune time.

"It's a really big move for a company like General Mills," Murphy said. "It's a huge victory for consumers."

General Mills announced the change to America's best-known breakfast cereal this month, just as the political battle over genetically modified foods heats up on the national stage.

The titans of the food industry, General Mills included, have long and successfully opposed efforts in Congress to require mandatory labeling of genetically altered foods.

But instead of letting those proposals die quietly, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is moving assertively to push industry-authored legislation that would deem all GMO labeling voluntary. Such legislation would also specifically preempt "any state labeling laws that are not identical to the federal program," according to a memo detailing the industry's battle that surfaced this week on Politico.

The effort to thwart the states is regarded as a hedge against a vocal consumer movement that is making inroads at the state level.

Until now, the fiercest confrontations over GMOs have taken place outside Washington. Maine and Connecticut passed labeling laws last year. Proposals to require labeling of genetically altered foods are under consideration in 26 states. The New Hampshire legislature is expected to vote next week on a labeling bill there, and the Vermont Senate soon after.

The food industry spent almost $70 million to defeat ballot initiatives in California and Washington state; Murphy said his organization is working to put initiatives on the November ballot in Colorado and Oregon.

An Easy Change

About 90 percent of commodity crops used in the nation's food supply, including soybeans, sugar beets, and feed corn, are genetically engineered. They are known as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The food industry resists labeling them out of concern that naming the presence of GMOs creates fear over food safety while it informs.

"It could be tantamount to putting a skull and crossbones on the labels," said an industry adviser in Washington who is familiar with the industry's new political strategy. "They are concerned about misleading consumers in every direction."

So why would General Mills, which is opposed to mandatory labeling, decide to purge Cheerios of GMOs now? For starters, it wasn't all that hard. There are no GMO oats, the primary ingredient in Cheerios. All General Mills had to do was switch to non-GMO sources of the small amount of cornstarch and sugar added to the cereal.

The change affects only the original Cheerios and not spinoff varieties like Honey Nut Cheerios.

"It's not much of a change at all," wrote Tom Forsythe, a General Mills spokesman in a posting on the company website. He added: "But it's not about safety. And it was never about pressure . . . We did it because we think consumers might embrace it."

"The Consumer Is King"

That's likely to be the case. While the Food and Drug Administration has deemed GMOs safe for human consumption, 9 in 10 Americans say they support the labeling of modified foods.

The Cheerios announcement is just the latest sign of a marketing trend aimed at capitalizing on consumer distrust of GMOs. Last spring, Whole Foods Market announced it will require all genetically altered products sold in its U.S. and Canadian stores to be labeled by 2018. (Trader Joe's said it eliminated GMO from products carrying the Trader Joe's label more than a decade ago.)

Chipotle Mexican Grill said it is working to eliminate genetically altered food from its menu, and Ben and Jerry's, which campaigned in support of the Washington state initiative, has announced plans to begin producing ice cream that is GMO-free by next year.

Still, the change in Cheerios is the first time an ordinary American product has dropped GMOs. The cereal is not a niche-market product, and General Mills' customer base is hardly the narrow slice of upscale patrons who shop at Whole Foods.

"It's a sign of the power of the growing grassroots movement," said Murphy, the food activist. "And a reminder that in America, the consumer is king."

51 comments
ken fisher
ken fisher

I live in Saskatchewan and work as a welder for a farmer implement manufacturer. Two long time employees who also farm using of course gmo canola seeds have been recently hospitalized and told they have prostate cancer in most peoples opinions here was caused by Monsanto's round up herbicide. If you lived here in Saskatchewan you would be shocked to see all the spraying taking place and witness peoples health deteriorate. What a damn shame....

Susan Laarman
Susan Laarman

The big industrial food companies have been trying to dominate the industry and consumers have had enough.  It's the age of transparency in business, especially in the food industry since people want to know what they put into their bodies, serve their children, how food was raised, how were animals treated, how were farmworkers treated.  The writing is on the wall and big industrial food companies are going down with a fight and millions and millions of dollars on efforts to mislead and confuse consumers. The money spent may buy them some time, but the resources could be devoted to much better positive things such as solving hunger, supporting family farmers, helping single moms feed their kids.  We put our money where our values are and that's how it should be.

kevlyn layton
kevlyn layton

This is a very good and useful article. We must be aware of what we are buying. Food is the main aspect of our life. We must have very healthy and fresh food which is not processed. I really appreciate the anti GMO's. Thanks for the awareness provided through this article.

m s
m s

I have to laugh at all the naysayers telling us nothing is wrong with GMO foods. If that's the case than why are they spending more to keep these labeling laws from being enacted federally than they would spend on the actual labeling of their products? Why have these crops been banned from foreign countries over and over again if they are superior to the crops that exist there now?! Why have farmers across the world burned their crops in protest to get these foods out of the country if nothing is wrong with them? there are better ways of making sure we have enough to eat, hydroponics comes to mind and so does underground greenhouse systems that are far less costly and less risky to our health/economy.

April Reeves
April Reeves

"Consumers are king" - why don't politicians and the GM industry get that? This is the most important statement ever. We dictate what gets grown, not Monsanto. It doesn't matter who we are, what we believe: what matters is that none of us support GM and won't buy it. The science doesn't matter. NONE of the GM industries' information, tests or combative moves work: in fact, it just fuels us as the other big question is "Why does an industry have to fight and beat up consumers to get their products out into market?" Every Pro GM article aids our case and advances our position. My big question to the manufacturers using GM ingredients is WHY? Why put your company at this high a risk, when you can sell non-GM to every human on this planet??? Switching will make you all heros. Be the hero first, not last. First out as non-GM wins all the blue ribbons!! 

Sheryl McCumsey
Sheryl McCumsey

Most GMO are designed to be sprayed with herbicide.  Spraying herbicide when you didn't before = more herbicide.  Stupid to say or believe otherwise.  Studies to support this.... what kind of argument is it to say other wise?  ....Lot's of studies world wide (not done by Monsanto though) to say many serious illness associated with those herbicides.  GM products are designed with markers to see if the plant has the desired DNA that has been blasted into it.  Those markers are antibiotic resistant bacteria.  This is a problem.  It is UNKNOWN where in the plant genome the DNA is exactly...we don't know what has been displaced and how the DNA interacts within the plant.  Animal studies show problems with these products but GM supporters will say that it isn't science because they HAVE to find something wrong with that so they can keep selling their products.  All GMO's have patents so the industry has a tremendous amount of control....lots of money in this(ie. royalties) not to mention government subsidies.  These plants are failing all over the world, people are beginning to make connections with their illnesses and there are better methods for producing new plants.  This science is bad and needs to be trashed.  A lot of money is being put into keeping this information away from the public.  Time for the flood gates of science as it once was to open!  No more Monsanto pseudo-science!!

Mark Donner
Mark Donner

Monsanto is factually a global terror organization.. one of the worst. They will murder your families and children for generations without a hint of remorse. They will destroy the future of the earth forever by laying waste to entire countries for their profits. “Biotech” monsters like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, Dupont are working hand in hand to murder and destroy for profits. Their management is criminal and pure evil and belong nowhere else than in a maximum security cell for the rest of their criminal lives. They must be stopped at all costs.

Mark Donner
Mark Donner

Monsanto is factually a global terrorist organization.. one of the worst. They will murder your families and children for generations without a hint of remorse. They will destroy the future of the earth forever and lay waste to entire countries for their profits. “Biotech” monsters like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, Dupont are working hand in hand to murder and destroy for profits. Their management is criminal and pure evil. They must be stopped at all costs.

Mark Donner
Mark Donner

Monsanto is factually a global terrorist organization.. one of the worst. They will murder your families and children for generations without a hint of remorse. They will destroy the future of the earth forever and lay waste to entire countries for their profits. “Biotech” monsters like Monsanto, Syngenta, Dow, Bayer, Dupont are working hand in hand to murder and destroy for profits. Their management is criminal and pure evil. They must be stopped at all costs.

Natural Nurture
Natural Nurture

Mr. Wager puts it in a nutshell:

[from his Vancouver Island University power point presentation slides]

___________________________________________________________________

"Science vs Pseudo-science—

Be wary of internet claims about GM crops and food"

[now there is a double edged sword if there ever was one!}


"All the changes to the DNA are to suit our needs not those of the plants or animals"

Lest we forget we are all animals too!

___________________________________________________________________

Mr. Wager goes on to list the EXPERTS who agree GMO is just hunky-dory…chiefly: the AMERICAN MEDICAL SOCIETY

…not the best choice of experts in my humble opinion…with a history of okaying THALIDOMIDE, VIOXX, CYTOTEC and whole lot more dangerous and deadly duds they used willy-nilly…they even told us cigarettes were good for us [we’re not talking marijuana here!]

___________________________________________________________________


“Remind the readers that the history of the medical establishment includes examples of mule-like stubbornness, incompetence, mediocrity, greed, arrogance, and stupidity. Consider the case of Dr. Ignas Semmelweis:

In 1847, Dr. Semmelweis, a respected Hungarian physician who was concerned about the high mortality rate of women giving birth in hospital, instituted a procedure at one hospital whereby doctors washed and disinfected their hands before delivering babies. Immediately, the mortality rate dropped from THIRTY percent to near zero. Seven other hospitals followed suit with similar results.” 


The Doctors' retort to this information, which languished for 100 year before acceptance: “Doctors are gentlemen and gentlemen are always clean!”  Their contempt for him was so great these experts locked poor Mr Semmelweis in an insane asylum where he died. 


We choose to listen to them professing GMO food is no WORSE than conventional???…guess another question is: WHAT is Conventional now?


What it all comes down to… is what Les Mizzell points out succinctly: 


I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THAT BOX.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST DISCLOSURE: I have a vested interest in the future. I have children and hope to have grandchildren. I want them to grow up healthy in healthy world.


Now lets all follow suit and list our conflicts so we can assess everyone's comments and commitment to truth.

Ann Wisehart
Ann Wisehart

As a consumer I have a right to know what I am buying. If I am more concerned about the environmental and social effects of GMO agriculture (which are considerable) than the personal health effects, I still want to be able to choose. It is like the "Made in China" label on a t-shirt. I may want to make a political decision to buy a t-shirt made in the US even if it is identical in quality and even higher in price.  That should be my choice. How I spend my money is a political decision. Free markets depend on free flow of information.

Leo Kretzner
Leo Kretzner

In the 'great GMO debates' (aka 'tempest in a pea pod') the emotion-to-intellect ratio is typically about 100-to-1. 


People fail to realize that we eat foreign DNA and RNA and protein ALL the time - assuming food is fresh and not completely processed, ie is healthy and natural.


People also fail to realize that the DNA (and RNA and proteins) of every living organism on earth is biochemically identical. Not similar, identical. Living things consume these natural chemicals, break 'em down and build 'em back up again in their own patterns. Been that way for over three billion years. 

There really is no "there" there, but that doesn't matter if you can create a rhetorical boogie man, aka "frankenfood." Emotion-to-intellect, 100:1. 


The ubiquity of environmental endocrine disruptors is a thousand-fold more significant and global climate change a million times more serious a concern.


I'm sure the Koch brothers are happy to see lots of progressives completely distracted and diverted by the pseudo-issue of GMOs. I'm sure they're also happy to see the anti-science and anti-scientist hatred of much anti-GMO 'literature' (aka paranoid opinions). 

Thanks for lining up with the climate change deniers, anti-GMO folks!! By the way, how old do you think the earth is? Never mind. If you only realized how you are pointlessly fiddling while the earth burns.

Natural Nurture
Natural Nurture

Nelson here is a start:


Regarding economic performance, even during the first two years of organic transition, average production costs in the conventional corn-soybean rotation were found to be approximately $50/ac higher than the average organic rotation costs. This decrease in costs in the organic rotation was due to the absence of petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides (herbicides, insecticides and fungicides). 


On average, the organic crops have returned two times the revenue as conventional crops over the duration of the experiment. - 


See more at: http://www.non-gmoreport.com/articles/feb10/organic_corn_soybean_yields_exceed_conventional.php#sthash.yQo2kkTC.dpuf "


I believe the who GMO controversy is about control of nature and who holds the cash at the end of the day. 


When 40% of America's wealth is in the hands of 1% of the people...

we need to look not just at GMO and its deleterious effects on people, land and outcome... but who pulls the strings of the political marionettes to achieve this preposterous imbalance of power and cash distribution.

Les Mizzell
Les Mizzell

It doesn't matter if GMO foods are safe or not. It doesn't matter how many studies have been done. It doesn't matter if I hate everything Monsanto stands for or not.

If comes down to one simple fact. We have the right to know EXACTLY what we're eating.

I can make the decision to purchase that box of Kellogs Corn Flakes on my own, but dammit, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S IN THAT BOX.

Nelson Kelm
Nelson Kelm

Sweeping statements like " There is lots of EVIDENCE the yields PURPORTED to be achieved via GMO have not materialized and the opposite is TRUE"  requires some kind of substantiation!  Please list evidence of your claim.  The whole GMO issue is driven by "Chicken little" conspiracy theorists with no apparent scientific credentials.  As the planet continues to change, due to climate change, the importance of GMO crops that can thrive in a hotter and, in many cases, much drier conditions will be the salvation of mankind.

Gina Seay
Gina Seay

I think the GM industries mishandled the marketing of their product right from the start. When they first announced they could modify strawberries with fish genes to make them freeze better they introduced an 'ick' factor that put some consumers off. For me, a lot depends on what the modification is, and that's the information I require before I'd purchase a product. Perception is a huge part of marketing. If you cover an apple in crap, then clean and sterilise it, and scientifically prove it is hygienic I still won't eat it, if I have in my mind the picture of it being covered in crap.

Natural Nurture
Natural Nurture

Jim,

Sheep and humans are the same chemicals too...I think it is the arrangement of those chemicals that make them different...and they are substantially different.

Usually humans think at a higher level than our ovine friends....but not always...never heard of sheep blowing up another country.

So one is substantially harder on health than the other. YES?


Jim Cooper
Jim Cooper

But you should point out that the sugar from beets and cane is chemically identical, as is the cornstarch and whether the plants are GM or not is simply irrelevant.

Richard McKee
Richard McKee

Anything that leads to more pesticides on food products and in the soil is harmful to the environment.  This concerns me much more that whether GM products are safe to eat.

reggie mcmurdo
reggie mcmurdo

So the grocery manufacturers association is asking congress to protect them from those angry citizens who are concerned with WHAT THEY EAT?


Silly me, I thought government's primary job was to protect CITIZENS from all sorts of threats, including protection against unknown/possible food sourced dangers.


If GMOs are as safe as claimed, show us the THIRD PARTY tests proving so, in house "tests" are not convincing. 

Diane Johnson
Diane Johnson

One of the main complaints about GMO plants is that while insect resistance is a selling point, this same resistance increase the need to use stronger pesticides(Monsanto connection) which end up in the soil and water and end up adding more pollution to the environment.

Andrew Thorby
Andrew Thorby

By and large the anti GMO movement is not backed up by hard science. That said, there is a difference between accelerating traditional plant breeding practices via genetic modifications and inserting genes from a frog into a corn plant. It is this second stage of genetic manipulation that has the possibility of serious un intended consequences and which clearly should require some degree of labeling.

Robert Wager
Robert Wager

I wonder how many people know of the European National Academies of Science 2013 report on GE crops?  in it they say:


There is no validated evidence that GM crops

have greater adverse impact on health and the

environment than any other technology used in

plant breeding.

and

“There is compelling evidence that GM crops

can contribute to sustainabledevelopment

goals with benefits to farmers, consumers, the

environment and the economy.”

EASAC 2013

Leo Kretzner
Leo Kretzner

@Natural NurtureYes, we need to look very much at the politics of unequal wealth distribution as well as corporate monopolies on food supply - and STOP conflating those issues with the mundane biology of how this or that crop is made!


There are political and economic issues, but the health issue with GMOs is bogus. It has been used as a emotional tool to turn people against GMOs.

If (perhaps well-intentioned) food activists had not needlessly demonized the food produced with GMO techniques, the big food companies likely wouldn't be so averse to labeling!!

Robert Wager
Robert Wager

@Natural Nurture  

This Nature publication disagrees with you.


Developed World

—Positive yield studies- 36 —Neutral yield studies- 18 —Negative yield studies- 7 —

Developing World

—Positive yield studies- 88 —Neutral yield studies- 13 —Negative yield studies- 6 — Nature Biotechnology Vol28 no 4, pp319

Robert Wager
Robert Wager

@Les Mizzell 

But Les

GE is not an ingredient its a breeding process, just like ionizing radiation mutagenesis, chemical mutagenesis, somalclonal variation, embryo rescue and other ":traditional breeding' methods not labelled.

Guy Vils
Guy Vils

@Sherelle Diggs Absolutely!


It is ESSENTIAL that that every kernel of corn be labeled with the color of the tractor used to plow the field it was grown in.


We have a right to know every detail of how our food is produced and every bit of it MUST be shown for every ingredient on every product that is sold.



Guy Vils
Guy Vils

@Gina Seay Except that: "About 90 percent of commodity crops used in the nation's food supply, including soybeans, sugar beets, and feed corn, are genetically engineered."


What you refer to as industry marketing was not; it was science/technology reporting and anti-science, luddite response to it.


The obviously hugely successful industry marketing was to the farmers who buy the products. Unlike the gee-whiz sensationalism and crack-pot hysteria above, it was based on rigorous scientific studies, field trials, government EPA, health and safety approvals and demonstrated, guaranteed, bottom-line business returns.

Ryan Goodman
Ryan Goodman

@Richard McKee Farmers from across the country I've talked to (who grow both GM and non-GM crops) explain that utilizing GM crops allow them to use less chemicals at more targeted points in the growing process. But there is so much noise out there to the contrary by activists, it seems that message from farmers will never be believed.

Robert Wager
Robert Wager

@reggie mcmurdoAll tests are according to internationally agreed protocols.  What test not already done would you like to see added and why?

Stuart M.
Stuart M.

@reggie mcmurdo


You just haven't bothered to look hard enough. Take a look at www.geneticliteracyproject.org which says:


The claim that GMOs are ‘understudied’ has become a staple of anti-GMO critics, especially activist journalists. In response to what they believed was an information gap, a team of Italian scientists cataloged and analyzed 1783 studies about the safety and environmental impacts of GMO foods—a staggering number.


The researchers couldn’t find a single credible example demonstrating that GM foods pose any harm to humans or animals. “The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of genetically engineered crops,” the scientists concluded.


There you have it. GMOs are safe. Will you accept these 1783 studies? I doubt it.

Swiftright Right
Swiftright Right

@Andrew Thorby  I like many other are not against GMO per say but we believe that companies should have a legal requirement to truthfully answer the question of whether their food items contain GMO.


Besides if, as you say the science is behind GMO food being safe there should be no issues with truthfully stating a product contains GMO

Chris Marley
Chris Marley

@Andrew Thorby Thank you for setting the science strait. I never thought there could be any reason genetic traits were not naturally combined cross-species  into a single entity and all it took was a Dr. Frankenstein. Who knew /snark off. 

Natural Nurture
Natural Nurture

Ah! Robert you are at it again. 


There it is again NO VALIDATED EVIDENCE. Now what does that mean? NO STUDIES? or HAND PICKED Studies...or NO REAL EVIDENCE...

There appears to be a whole lot of evidence...just not that the GMO consortium has authored. 

The proGMO studies are short term. What short term study will show harm? NONE… RIGHT...but that is NOT EVIDENCE OF NO HARM ...just no EVIDENCE of Harm in 90 Days or what ever the short many short term studies have been....there is a word that covers this kind of science. Many would call it fraud. Stop the study before evidence presents itself…and/or… DENY all studies that show damage both ‘in house’ and ‘impartial research’ as bad science…. demonize them…ruin careers with well managedm media…the studies were flawed… because “they used the wrong rats”

…guess the French study should have used the CEOs of Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta, Dow, Dupont etc ;—)


Maybe it was they did the research with too much honesty and integrity?

There is lots of EVIDENCE the yields PURPORTED to be achieved via GMO have not materialized and the opposite is TRUE...lower yields and more expense per acre for Glyphosate and then even greater expense to bring the fields back to homeostasis...if that is even possible after all the toxins leaching and running down river.


One thing is for sure— the YIELD of propaganda is up tremendously…along with the money laundering and contribution fraud is way up... by the big Guns pushing GMOS and holding back labelling...and the defence fund used by GMA for advertising propaganda at a whopping $80 million used to quash the ballots and labelling, is WAY UP…that much money…WOULD FEED A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE.


SO the big question is, what is more important—

feeding the PEOPLE OF THE PLANET?

... or the SHAREHOLDERS of MONSANTO et al?

Mark Donner
Mark Donner

@Les Mizzell Wrong. GMO is not only an ingredient, it's a lethal poison. any company doing that must be bankrupted and destroyed. The crime is called poisoning your food and those responsible must be punished

reggie mcmurdo
reggie mcmurdo

@Stuart M. Then surely you will support the effort to have Monsanto change their standard contract to allow TESTING of their patented seeds, right? Because, with enforcement of this contract, where did these studies come from?


Sort term (mostly in house) studies of a new technology for a life necessary product the public will be forced to eat forever into the future is not sufficient, in the opinion of the vast majority of the public.


Government that ignores this fact has FAILED!

Guy Vils
Guy Vils

@Swiftright Right@Andrew Thorby But GMO is not something a product contains. It is the method by which it is produced. It is similar to Kosher labeling, and is similarly voluntary, hence the new non-GMO Cheerios.


Do you really think it makes sense to require all foods to be labelled "non-Kosher",  "mechanically planted" or "manufactured using chemically-treated water"?


If you want to label your products "Kosher", "hand-planted" or "manufactured using only natural spring water" you are free to do so, as long as you can prove it is TRUE.


Robert Wager
Robert Wager

@Natural NurtureHere is a review of 24 (alleged non-existant long term studies)


}a b s t r a c t }The aim of this systematic review was to collect data concerning the effects of diets containing GM maize, }potato, soybean, rice, or triticale on animal health. We examined 12 long-term studies (of more than 90 days, up to 2 years in duration)and 12 multigenerational studies (from 2 to 5 generations).We referenced the 90-day studies on GM feed for which long-term or multigenerational study data were available. Many parameters have been examined using biochemical analyses, histological examination of specific organs, hematology and the detection of transgenic DNA. The statistical findings and methods have been considered from each study. Results from all the 24 studies do not suggest any health hazards and, in general, there were no statistically significant differences within parameters observed.However, some small differences were observed, though these fell within the normal variation range of the considered parameter and thus had no biological or toxicological significance. If required, a 90-day feeding study performed in rodents, according to the OECD Test Guideline, is generally considered sufficient in order to evaluate the health effects of GM feed. The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed. } Food and Chemical Toxicology 50 (2012) 1134–1148

Nelson Kelm
Nelson Kelm

@Natural Nurture

Sweeping statements like " There is lots of EVIDENCE the yields PURPORTED to be achieved via GMO have not materialized and the opposite is TRUE"  requires some kind of substantiation!  Please list evidence of your claim.  The whole GMO issue is driven by "Chicken little" conspiracy theorists with no apparent scientific credentials.  As the planet continues to change, due to climate change, the importance of GMO crops that can thrive in a hotter and, in many cases, much drier conditions will be the salvation of mankind.

Ian Cutler
Ian Cutler

@Swiftright Right @Robert Wager because of the stigma. People want these foods labeled so that they can avoid them, the people fighting to have these labels view them as warning labels. If that is the case then these products may not sell as well, if there is lower demand then less work is done to further their development. This is the end game of anti GMO advocates.


This in mind you may ask well what is the harm? A lot of the work going into making these crops more resistant, and grow in worse conditions means being able to produce larger amounts of food. Not only does more food mean lower prices for you and I who can already afford the food but food for disadvantaged people and disadvantaged countries. 

Some of the pioneers of GMO were primarily focused on feeding the world. The fact that corporations such as Monsanto have become the largest benefactors of the technology is a result of capitalism.

Ryan Goodman
Ryan Goodman

@Swiftright Right @Robert Wager isn't there already a label to tell you that information? It's called the ingredients list. Labels make us lazy. There's no reason why we can't take time to learn what crops are classified as GM and look for those ingredients for ourselves. If labeling initiatives truly are consumer-driven, then why not label the products you choose to pay more for as non-GMO. It's already done with the multitude of labels claiming "natural" and "organic" products. If there's no difference between the GM and non-GM foods, then forcing a label that identifies GMO is nothing more than a marketing ploy, much like what Cheerios has done here.

Stuart M.
Stuart M.

@reggie mcmurdo @Stuart M. Ooooo, you toss out one lie and then compound it with two more. How do you know those 1783 are "short-term" or "in-house"? Fess up, you didn't even look.


You have the fanaticism of the religious. Never deviate from the anti-GMO dogma, never consider any evidence to the contrary, cast aside all reason and just assert things you don't know. You are hopeless. 


Sheryl McCumsey
Sheryl McCumsey

@Robert Wager @Natural Nurture Problem is Robert - too many people are getting sick and it occurred to them past the 90 days.....you can recite this all you want but when people are living your lie it is going to come back to you one day.  The world is a small place and for those who continue to listen to you and think that you know what you are talking about ONE day they will figure it out and they may not be happy with how much time and effort you put into creating this facade.

FuckYou PITA
FuckYou PITA

@Nelson Kelm @Natural Nurture 


There are NO GMO crops that do better in arid conditions, zero zip, none


the only GMO crops that are really being used are ones that incorporate Glyphosate tolerance, and Bt Toxin


Both of these are rapidly becoming obsolete because nature evolves rapidly and pests are now tolerant of the Bt toxin (google indias problems), and roundup is no longer as effective as weeds are now not suseptible to the herbicide, look up the pigweed issue in the american south

Share

Feed the World

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »