Original Cheerios to go GMO-free

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS


CANDICE CHOI, ASSOCIATED PRESS

NEW YORK (AP) — General Mills says some Cheerios made without genetically modified ingredients will start appearing on shelves soon.

The company said Thursday that it has been manufacturing its original-flavor Cheerios without GMOs for the past several weeks. It did not specify exactly when those boxes would be on sale. The change does not apply to any other Cheerios flavors such as Apple Cinnamon Cheerios.

Original Cheerios boxes will be labeled as “Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients.” But the boxes will say that trace amounts of GMO ingredients could be present due to contamination during the manufacturing process, said Mike Siemienas, a company spokesman.

Original Cheerios are already made with non-GMO oats, but now the company says it’s also using non-GMO cornstarch and sugar.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/original_cheerios_to_go_gmo_free/

[valerief]

1. Excellent.

[billhicks76]

14. Very Cool

This will get some momentum building.

[djean111]

2. Baby steps.

[Archae]

3. Just as I figured would happen.

Companies will use "No GMO" as a sales gimmick.

[iandhr]

4. Of course...

If there is a market for something someone one will supply the product to meet the demand.

[sendero]

27. Proving to processors....

... that there is a (large, medium, small?) contingent of folks who will PAY MONEY to avoid GMO foods is a good thing, as money is the only thing that is going to change anything.

[thesquanderer]

5. A little incongruous. I wouldn't envision Cheerios buyers

as being the kind of consumer most interested in avoiding GMO food.

[Blue_In_AK]

6. It's really good for all the babies

who use Cheerios as finger food.

[alp227]

7. Really? Which studies show children are better off without GMOs?

I don't get it. DU laughs at creationists and global warming deniers yet have no problem with baseless non-scientific GMO-bashing?

[Blue_In_AK]

8. Where are the studies showing they're better off WITH GMOs?

[alp227]

9. Your post said, "It's really good for all the babies who use Cheerios as finger food."

So the burden is on you to back your statement, not me to prove it wrong.

[thesquanderer]

11. burden of proof

If the ag industry is going to genetically alter the food we eat, maybe it should be up to them to prove it's safe rather than up to others to prove it's not?

I'm not sure there's anything wrong with GM food. But I do agree with those who say that the food should be appropriately labeled for those who want to be able to choose for themselves.

I do buy the milk from non-hormone treated cows. Maybe it's no better, but the cost difference is minimal, and I'd rather err on the side of caution.

As for reasons to believe that GMO food may not be truly equivalent to the non modified versions, these links may provide "food for thought"...

http://earthopensource.org/index.php/3-health-hazards-of-gm-foods/3-4-myth-gm-foods-have-been-proven-safe-for-human-consumption

http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/10/number-scientists-say-gmos-proven-safe-climbs-230/

[Blue_In_AK]

12. Thank you.

I have no problem with normal hybridization, but I have my doubts about gene splicing, joining together unrelated species, as in Frankenfish, for instance.

I rely on my gut feelings, which admittedly aren't scientific, so I appreciate your links. And, as you say, better safe than sorry.

[pnwmom]

17. Another point. It goes back to the 1992 FDA, which issued

a ruling saying from now on all GMO products will be considered safe, unless proven otherwise.

At the same time, the FDA allows the GMO producers to control the use of their seeds. Researchers can't get the seeds unless they sign contracts with the producers that can include limits on their right to publish.

So nothing negative about GMO foods gets published.

Pretty clever set-up, right? The GMO producers really did well on that one.

[proverbialwisdom]

25. Sweet!

“Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe for the safety of biotech food, our interest is in selling as much as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

- Phil Angell
Director of Corporate Communication – Monsanto
New York Times, Oct. 25, 1998

"Monsanto came to Arthur Anderson to look at how they wanted to position themselves, and they asked them, 'where do you want to be with Monsanto in 20 or 30 years?' And the answer was, 'We want to control the global food supply."

- Kirk Azevedo, former Monsanto employee

Source: http://adventuresinautism.blogspot.com/2008/05/monsanto-gmos-world-according-to.html
GOOGLE: Monsanto site:adventuresinautism.blogspot.com

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/25/magazine/playing-god-in-the-garden.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Playing God in the Garden
By Michael Pollan
Published: October 25, 1998

<>

I thought about Maryanski's candid and wondrous explanations the next time I met Phil Angell, who again cited the critical role of the F.D.A. in assuring Americans that biotech food is safe. But this time he went even further. ''Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food,'' he said. ''Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.''

<>

Pollan's 1998 article is new to me. On Thursday I was banned from Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience (Group) or I'd add this to the M.P. thread there: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1231&pid=2207

[pnwmom]

26. You got banned? Welcome to the world of sane and reasonable people

without their heads up their asses.

Thanks for the Pollan link.

[HuckleB]

30. This is the funniest thing I've read in some time!

ROFLMAO!!!!!

Oh, the disconnect! WOW!

[pnwmom]

31. You're just a bucket of laughs. n/t

[pnwmom]

15. Do you know why there are no such studies?

Step 1, in 1992 the FDA issued a ruling that stated that henceforth, all GMO foods are automatically considered to be safe, unless proven otherwise. So the default position is that any new GMO food is safe.

Step 2, they allow the GMO producers to control all research. Researchers can only get the seeds from the producers themselves, and the law allows the producers to make the researchers sign contracts giving producers the right to restrict publication of any resulting research.

Pretty clever, huh? Then people like you can keep talking about "non-scientific GMO-bashing."

[alp227]

18. 1992 = George H.W. Bush actually

So apparently it's a big conspiracy to censor the science, and Infowars is right?

[pnwmom]

19. I don't read Infowars. Do you?

Here is a link from the American Bar Association.

http://www.americanbar.org/content/newsletter/publications/aba_health_esource_home/aba_health_law_esource_1302_bashshur.html

The FDA policy (unchanged since 1992)20 places responsibility on the producer or manufacturer to assure the safety of the food, explicitly relying on the producer/manufacturer to do so: “Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the producer of a new food to evaluate the safety of the food and assure that the safety requirement of section 402(a)(1) of the act is met.”21 So it is the company, not any independent scientific review, providing the research that is relied on to assert safety. FDA guidance to industry issued in 1997 covered voluntary “consultation procedures,” but still relied on the developer of the product to provide safety data.22 There is currently no regulatory scheme requiring GM food to be tested to see whether it is safe for humans to eat.23

The FDA approach can be understood as the result of having a dual mission. In addition to its mission to protect food safety, the FDA was charged with promotion of the biotech industry.24

Health Concerns Continue

However, some studies have called to question the safety of these foods. The chemical herbicides applied are poisons engineered specifically for the purpose of killing plant life, and their use is increasing.25 Crops which result from genetic modifications, resistant to the chemicals, are classified as safe with no long term studies available to provide an evidence base.26 The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (“AAEM”) released a position paper calling for a moratorium on GM foods pending independent long term studies to investigate the role of GM foods on human health.27 The authors asserted that “there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.”28 The paper also cited numerous animal studies showing adverse effects and posited that the biological plausibility, as defined by Hill’s criteria, in light of this data is that adverse health effects are also caused in humans.29 A 2011 study found maternal/fetal exposure associated with GM crops in Quebec.30 A well publicized study,31 sharply criticized by industry32 found that rats fed GM corn developed tumors and organ damage.33 Moreover, new questions continue to emerge.34 The nature of these concerns have manifested in repeated calls for new food labeling regulations containing GM ingredients.35 However, the FDA has expressed no interest in revisiting its policy. Moreover, a 2002 study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (since renamed the Government Accountability Office and referred to as “GAO”)) asserted that it is not feasible to assess long term effects of GMOs because it is so difficult to assemble a control group without labels on GM food.

[Auggie]

10. You forget the power of advertising

General Mills will make people interested. That's a good brand group on Cheerios by the way.

[yellowwoodII]

13. Know what else it doesn't have?

Answer: Much nutrition. Over three dollars a pound and part of it is cornstarch and sugar. A waste of money. It's not nice to trick parents who are trying to give their children a nutritious cereal.

The food industry tricks customers by these gimmicks, like they would tell you an apple has no cholesterol.

[Agschmid]

16. I don't think they are "tricking" anyone...

[Avis]

20. Mexicali sweets

So, we will get virtually the same product as the U.K. does. Because Mexican sugar is so cheap, right now. Thing is, the British version of Cheerios, made by Nestlé, has 21.5g of sugar per 100g, more than five times the amount of sugar as the American version (4g per 100g).
Makes me feel so much healthier, already.

[on point]

21. Competition must be getting to them.

[closeupready]

22. I'm surprised that's not against the law.

But good for them. K&R

[JoeyT]

23. I'm pretty sure Non-GMO isn't a protected term.

So you're going to have to wait for people that aren't General Mills to test it and verify the truth of their claim. If you can trust the people that do the testing. If it's actually even possible to determine once whatever's in a Cheerio has gone through the amount of processing required to make it a Cheerio.

I think Non-GMO is going to be the new "Natural!". An utterly meaningless catchphrase plastered across every box, bottle, and can, to make people think it's healthy, when all it actually is is sugar, fat, and salt.

[proverbialwisdom]

24. Victory for Consumers: General Mills Announces That Original Cheerios Are Now Non-GMO

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29017.cfm

Victory for Consumers: General Mills Announces That Original Cheerios Are Now Non-GMO
By Shireen
GMO Inside, January 2, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. - With 40,000 Facebook posts from consumers who took part in GMO Inside's campaign calling on General Mills to make Cheerios non-GMO (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios/), General Mills today posted its statement on GMOs http://cheerios.com/en/Articles/cheerios-and-gmos. The company states: "It's the unique and simple nature of original Cheerios that made this possible - and even that required significant investment over nearly a year," and "we were able to change how we source and handle ingredients to ensure that the corn starch for original Cheerios comes only from non-GMO corn, and our sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar."

One year ago, in November 2012, GMO Inside starting calling on consumers to put pressure on General Mills to make Cheerios without GMOs due to concerns over the health and environmental impacts of GMOs. Cheerios are a top selling cereal in the U.S. and often one of the first solid foods fed to children. As soon as the campaign launched, tens of thousands of consumers started flooding Cheerios' Facebook page with concerned comments regarding GMOs in Cheerios (http://gmoinside.org/launch-gmo-inside-campaign-cheerios/), and used an app put out by Cheerios to spell out anti-GMO messages in the Cheerios font (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios-facebook-page-bombarded-by-...). In October 2013, GMO Inside issued a real corporate responsibility report for General Mills (http://gmoinside.org/cheerios/), and called on consumers to email and call the General Mills to get GMOs out of Cheerios. GMO Inside also put out a video highlighting the GMOs in Cheerios that was watched by over 200,000 viewers. Over 25,000 people took part in the email actions and calls to the company. In the past week callers to the company were told that Cheerios would have a big announcement about GMOs soon.

Green America Corporate Responsibility Director Todd Larsen stated: "Removing GMOs from original Cheerios is an important victory in getting GMOs out of our food supply and an important first step for General Mills. Original Cheerios in its famous yellow box will now be non-GMO and this victory sends a message to all food companies that consumers are increasingly looking for non-GMO products and companies need to meet that demand."

>>> Read the Full Article: http://gmoinside.org/victory-consumers-general-mills-announces-original-cheerios-now-non-gmo/

[proverbialwisdom]

28. GMO inside Congratulates Post Foods on Non-GMO Grape-Nuts.

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/36606-GMO-Inside-Congratulates-Post-on-Non-GMO-Grape-Nuts?

GMO inside Congratulates Post on Non-GMO Grape-Nuts
CSR Wire, January 16, 2014

Post Foods informs GMO Inside that Grape-Nuts Original will be Non-GMO Project Verified and will be available starting in January 2014

WASHINGTON - GMO Inside, a national consumer campaign of Green America that educates consumers about GMOs, has learned from Post Foods that the company is rolling out Non-GMO Verified Grape-Nuts in January 2014.

The company wrote the following in response to a request from GMO Inside: "We have an exciting update for you. Post has released a non-GMO verified Grape Nuts that is on the store shelves as of January, 2014. Also, we are exploring some of our other cereals to see if there is potential going forward to add more non-GMO verified products to the Post Foods product line. We are always listening to our consumers and looking for ways to provide a good variety of products." Post's move closely follows that of General Mills, which released non-GMO original Cheerios in early January, though Cheerios is not third-party verified.

"GMO Inside thanks Post for removing GMOs from Grape-Nuts Original and congratulates them for doing it right with third party verification.," said Green America GMO Inside Campaign Director Nicole McCann. "We're glad Post is also considering removing GMOs from other cereals and look forward to seeing them on the shelves. We would also love to see Post supporting mandatory GMO labeling."

<>

Link from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_29097.cfm

[proverbialwisdom]

29. GMO Inside Applauds Whole Foods' Decision to Drop Chobani Yogurt

http://www.csrwire.com/press_releases/36548-GMO-Inside-Applauds-Whole-Foods-Decision-to-Drop-Chobani-Yogurt

GMO Inside Applauds Whole Foods' Decision to Drop Chobani Yogurt
Posted: Dec 18, 2013 – 03:50 PM EST

WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 /CSRwire/ - GMO Inside, a campaign of national non-profit Green America, issued the following statement today:

“We applaud Whole Foods’ decision today to drop Chobani yogurts from its shelves. GMO Inside first sounded the alarm about the presence of GMO feed in the milk found in Chobani products in summer 2013. Since then, twenty thousand consumers have taken action to urge Chobani to drop GMOs from its supply chain, and posted comments on Chobani’s Facebook page.

GMO Inside encourages consumers to seek out the growing range of non-GMO and organic yogurts and is pleased that Whole Foods will be making more space available on its shelves for these options, particularly when it concerns GMO animal feed in dairy operations. This announcement is further proof that consumer demand is being reflected in the marketplace when it comes to non-GMO alternatives.”

Tell Chobani to get GMOs out of their dairy operations here: http://action.greenamerica.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=11496

<>

[Pterodactyl]

32. Anti-science.

I have no problem eating GMOs.