Sorting through the confusion about GMOs


You deserve safe, healthy food. Help us label GMOs and get antibiotics out of food animals.

By Caitlin Watkins on Friday, June 19th, 2015

Here’s an infographic to help consumers sort through confusing news and messages about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). GMOs are found in a wide range of products, and should be labeled to support informed choice.


52 responses to “Sorting through the confusion about GMOs”

  1. This is completely over-hyped by the non scientific community. the picture of the tomato and fish revives a FALSE RUMOR that this is sold to consumers (it was a failed flab experiment). On the topic of weed killer, why would CU even insinuate that making food resistant to Glyphosate equates to ingesting this poison. These foods took the genes from EXISTING PLANTS that are resistant to Glyphosate and put this in the food chain.

    Without GMO, the world goes hungry. “Natural” agriculture pollutes more, requires much more land, has much less food production per acre, and spoils quicker.

    Do the research. Check the link above and this link for real research on this topic (and follow the links in these articles for the FACTS).

    • gewisn says:

      Thank you, Steve.
      CR has gone completely off the rails on this issue, with ZERO scientific consensus on their side.

      CR is fantastic for evaluating home appliances, cars, TV’s, etc. But they have no expertise on complex scientific issues and they are not equipped to do the sorts of complicated scientific research necessary to evaluate such a topic.

      That’s not an insult. They were never meant to do that.
      CR is an organization built to do real-world testing on consumer products, not medical treatments, not controversial and political topics, not basic sciences.

      CR tests and rates home products, and they do it well.
      They do themselves, and us, no service when they try to do other things.

    • Lin B says:

      If you will read the article on this website, “More Concerns about Glyphosate Herbicide Residues in Produce”, you will see that there IS proof that pesticides are in our food. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out these chemicals are toxic. Our government lags behind other nations in outlawing these toxins. Just as the cigarette industry denied there was “proof” that cigarettes cause cancer, the chemical industry denies the same way and for the same reasons. Furthermore, the problem with GMOs is not changing the genes per say, but that most GMOs are created so even more glyphosate and other chemicals can saturate the plant without killing it. So GMO products saturate YOU with more poisons, too.

      If you cannot afford to go totally organic, there is an up-to-date chart, “Crop to Table Pesticides”, you can download within the above article that tells you which produce has the most. I am pleasantly surprised to find out there are less toxic chemicals now than 20 years ago in some foods. Even if you have followed this issue for a long time as I have, you will benefit from seeing an update on which foods are the worst, and which countries are the best for each food, organic or not, so you can spend your money where it counts the most. There were so few alternatives in the 1970s to 90s. Now, organics are sold everywhere. As more people buy organics, the food distribution system will adjust to bring prices down. Also, frozen organics have nutrients at least as good as fresh and keep without waste–very economical.

      Do not let “Big Business” tell you that organic farming is not sustainable. Go view some of the excellent documentaries that speak to this issue. Organic farming gets more profitable if it is used on the same land year after year. What is not sustainable are more and more chemicals. When we fight against nature it is always a losing battle. Our absolutely essential bees are dying. Our absolutely essential oceans are dying. The land has fewer life sustaining nutrients and organisms than before the currently used mass-farming methods. There is a better way.

      As far as organics not lasting as long on the shelf, that is probably a good thing. Think about it. You can buy old food that looks good (because not even the microorganisms want to eat it) but has lost much of its nutrients, or you can buy real food that will rot if it gets old, like food is supposed to do. For instance, check out the ingredients in that wonderfully soft bread when you buy it. If it has dough conditioners, it will stay soft forever. That does not mean it is fresh forever. Not only does it lose nutrients before it shows its age, but you get the added bonus of yummy man-made chemicals. If you are buying food, buy real food that nourishes not just tastes good.

      We can no longer count on our government to protect us from dangerous products. The FDA and USDA are weak and ineffectual if not downright in bed with big business. We must search out many sources for information and use our God-given common sense. As a two-time cancer survivor, thank you Consumer Reports for fighting for me!

    • Sanford Scholton says:

      and the article (good one by the way), never covered how much the natural sugar industry stands to gain if every product that is using corn syrup has to be labled GMO. Its always a good idea to “follow the money” and the sugar cane, sugar beet people are putting a lot into their chances of getting back into the playing field.

  2. Glee217 says:

    Trader joe’s DOES NOT have NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED LABELS in any products labeled by TJ.

    A better store is Wholefoods. In a year or two ALL or MOST of the products they sell will carry the NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED LABELS.

    Also if you google TJ with foodbabe it shows that they are hidding something about gmo products.

    • Sanford Scholton says:

      Any thing that Foodbabe says needs to be researched as she usually has no clue about what she is talking about.

  3. Carol Perkinson says:

    “As a long time Consumer Reports subscriber (more than 20 years) it is surprising and sad to me that Consumers Union has gone on an anti-GMO crusade when most of the extensive scientific literature has shown GMO products to be safe and to have helped millions throughout the world to get adequate nutrition.” I agree with this customer’s response. – carol

    • Santiago Newbery says:

      I do not see that Consumer Reports has gone on an anti-GMO crusade. What I see is that they are promoting awareness of GMOs and yes, they are crusading for the FDA to require labeling of GMO in foods. Then we can all make choices. If you want to eat GMO foods you will then know which you can buy. I will prefer to stay away from them myself.

      • eli says:

        The Consumers Union has disregarded scientific evidence of the benefits of GMO, and the evidence of non-harm of GMO.

        Instead, it has promulgated non-scientific statements about GMO touting potential harm which scientific research has not verified.

        That is the anti-GMO crusade by Consumers Union that I find offensive and not in the spirit of the CU.



    • Sanford Scholton says:

      Well, you spray Roundup on the plant and it dies. Then when a new weed grows from a seed, you have to use it again. It biodegrades and does not hurt the soil. If you don’t want to keep using it, you can buy products that will sterilize the soil for a year – but that does screw up the soil big time.
      Not sure what Obamacare has to do with Roundup – wait, by any chance does your husband have a good paying job and you are on his health plan?

  5. Dan H says:
    New Report Debunks ‘Myth’ That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World
    “After examining recent research on GMO crop production, the report also found:
    Genetically modified crops—primarily corn and soybeans—have not substantially contributed to global food security and are primarily used to feed animals and cars, not people.
    GMO crops in the US are not more productive than non-GMO crops in western Europe.
    A recent case study in Africa found that crops that were crossbred for drought tolerance using traditional techniques improved yields 30 percent more than genetically engineered varieties.”
    . . . Most GMOs crops are used to feed meat animals and to create food products for nonhungry people in developed countries, not for people in poor countries.

    • Sanford Scholton says:

      Well, except for the fact that they conveniently ignored those products like golden rice which is being bred for those poor countries, the rest is pretty accurate.
      The GMO’s are mainly produced in the mid United States (good luck getting a Republican Congress to do any labeling laws). They are used to feed animals and to make corn syrup used in many, many foods. The natural (read expensive) sugar industry would love to have labeling laws so that once again their sugar would be used. If you think Monsanto is bad – look at the history of the sugar companies!

  6. Dan Hung says:

    New Report Debunks ‘Myth’ That GMOs are Key to Feeding the World
    “The biotechnology industry “myth” that feeding billions of people necessitates genetically engineered agriculture has been debunked by a new report out Tuesday by the nonprofit health organization Environmental Working Group.”

    • eli says:

      This website is not a scientific or reliable site but is the news feed of activists who have a preordained position against GMO.

      The potential for golden rice is scientifically proven and one can research this on the web. And its primary use is in the developed world.

      The scientific data on many sorts of GMO are well-documented. If you do not want to use them, do not.

  7. Pete Cox says:

    I feel Consumers Union is contributing to the GMO confusion by not distinguishing between GMO (Genetically Modified Organism) and GE (Genetically Engineered) organism. To me, Genetic Modification is the age old practice of cross breeding. It is the Genetic Engineering process of creating organisms that could never occur in nature that worries me, and for which we need the labeling.

  8. Joseph says:

    It seems to me this conversation has gotten out of hand. There is no evidence of harmful effects related to GMO foods. If we are going to see this planet we need to create crops resistant to variety of pathogens and flexible enough to deal with climate change. GMO potatoes have fewer carcinogens then natural ones. Golden Rice could save many people from blindness. Frankenfood as it is called buy a few fanatics is insane. My recommendation is get over it and go to the market. Labeling will only serve to scare people. It is a waste of time and money which would better go to feeding hungry people. I really think that Consumer Reports got it wrong on this issue. It is like someone trying to say that we should have biblical creationism taught in school because that opinion should be respected alongside science. Ridiculous! Almost 90% of the members for the American Association for the Advancement of Science find no problem with GMO food. Please tell the conspiracy theorists and the doubters to get over it

  9. Linda Waller says:

    There is a $ 25 million ‘Factor GMO’ study that will investigate the health effects of a genetically modified (GMO) crop that has been in our food and animal feed supplies for many years. Factor GMO will also add invaluable data of unprecedented power to enable regulators, governments and the general public of every country to answer the question: Is the GM food and associated pesticide tested safe at real-world levels of consumption and exposure and safe for human health?

    Factor GMO’s preparatory phase started in early 2014. The full experiment will begin in 2015 and will last 2-3 years, with interim results being published at regular intervals during that time.
    The study will test a herbicide-tolerant GM maize and realistic levels of the glyphosate herbicide it is engineered to be grown with.
    The study will take place at undisclosed locations in Western Europe and Russia. The exact locations of the study must be kept confidential for security reasons as Factor GMO wants to avoid any outside interference that could compromise the day-to-day running of the experiments and/or the final results.

    The whole article can be read at:

    This study should be able to answer the questions of safety once and for all. Patience will be needed until the study is complete. As for me I plan on staying away from GMO’s, not only due to the GMO safety issues but also due to the heavy doses of pesticide used to grow them. I don’t like putting chemicals into my body. That includes the so called preservatives (chemicals) in prepackaged food as well. I only eat real food whole food, that I completely prepare myself. I only use food I’ve grown myself organically, from farmers markets, or organic. I am exposed to enough chemicals everyday that I can’t control. Food ingredients is one thing I can control.

    • Kim says:

      I agree with you about eating organic foods and staying away from processed foods. Not only is it a healthier and smarter choice, but you control what goes into your food. 🙂

      • Linda Waller says:

        It should be all about choice and right to know. Labelling of GMO’s allows choice. That way if you believe GMO’s are bad for whatever reason you can a choose not to eat them. The same as other ingredients are labeled on food products. If you don’t want to eat a particular food product because it contains an objectionable ingredient/s you can choose not to eat or purchase it.
        As far as what some people are saying about food shortages, there are millions of tons of food that goes to waste everyday that could be feeding people. For example:
        I was told by employees in several different local supermarkets chains that by law if a freezer breaks down and is not fixed or the food moved to another freezer within an hour that food must be thrown in the trash even though it is still frozen.
        The same thing goes when food is being transported from one location to another in equipment capable of keeping food frozen.
        This is a terrible waste of food. This sort of thing happens around the world especially in developed countries. I think that the supply, storage and transportation laws of food around the world need to be changed. I don’t believe we have so much of a supply shortage issue as a logistics and storage issue. Once the logistics and storage issues surrounding food are solved I believe there will be a very small if any shortage of food. As a matter of fact we may even end up with a surplus of food. If that doesn’t solve the problem then we can look for other solutions.
        Instead of arguing about what kind of agriculture is best we should try to have the different types coexist peacefully. That way people can choose what is best for them based on there beliefs and preferences.
        Pesticide use has long been known to have bad side effects. Their makers have all claimed that they are harmless and years later have been found to not be true. Nature has always had a checks and balance system. Every living organism has a natural enemy/enemies. We should try to work within this system instead of going against it. Below is a link for a video that I think people who think pesticides are harmless should watch.
        GMO lobbyist claims glyphosate is safe enough to drink, then refuses to drink it
        My personal belief is that there is to much controversy over GMO’s for me to consider them safe. There is also a lot of pesticide use in the growing of these food plants. Therefore it is my choice not to eat them. Conventional agriculture also uses high amounts of pesticides therefore I choose not to eat those either. With that being said it is my choice to eat organically grown food. As said in another post, I also prepare all my food myself from scratch. This gives me the choice to put what I want and the amounts I choose into the food I prepare and eat.

        • Kim says:

          Thanks for the link. I watched it & found the video and the article interesting. Maybe someone needs to offer him GMO food too.
          Let him back up his viewpoint. As for golden rice, why not give them seeds for foods that are high in A?
          I agree with you. Label foods so we can make choices. I believe we all want the ability to choose what we eat.

          • Lea says:

            The problem with giving them seeds for foods that have vitamin A is that, since most of the people there depend on rice as a staple food, it’s more likely that they will plant ‘golden’ rice and increase their vitA that way. To them, that may seem like a waste of space, especially since most vitA rich foods aren’t very filling, and won’t do much in the way of keeping hunger at bay. When given a choice between a vitA rich diet, and growing rice that will keep them from going hungry, most people will go with the rice.

          • Kim says:

            True. I wonder what else has been put in the golden rice.

  10. eli says:

    As a long time Consumer Reports subscriber (more than 20 years) it is surprising and sad to me that Consumers Union has gone on an anti-GMO crusade when most of the extensive scientific literature has shown GMO products to be safe and to have helped millions throughout the world to get adequate nutrition. This political witch hunt may even lead me to end my current subscription which lasts until 2018.

  11. Regarding Richard’s no. 3 point: The IARC ,an arm of WHO, did classify glycophosphate as a probable carcinogen in March of this year.

  12. Sanford Scholton says:

    Frank has a very good point about Labeling. There is nothing the natural sugar industry would love better then to see all GMO’s labeled. Why? Because almost all corn syrup used as sweeteners are GMO’s. And the corn syrups are used because they are a lot cheaper. The natural sugar industry (sugar beets, and cane) know that people would skip those cereals, etc., sweetened with the GMO corn and go for the “natural” sugar.
    I am really kind of surprised that Consumers Union has not followed the money trail on this. There is absolutely no proof that GMO corn sweeteners are any worse for you then the natural sugars (ignoring all the bad stuff that high fructose does , either naturally or via corn.) I wonder If Consumers Union has gotten any large donations via the natural sugar group?

  13. John Bourdon says:

    I just want to know what I’m eating. I’ll probably eat most GMO product foods and maybe choose not to eat others. Labels have to show sugar content, salt content, etc., etc. Why not just add GMO yes or no?

    GMO foods have enabled many people of the world to avoid starvation. That’s good. I’m not caught up in the hysteria but I feel that I should be able to know what I’m eating. If nothing else, it will provide a way to keep track of whether or not these foods cause any changes to people’s health, etc.

    “Hey! Hey! Something went wrong. You’re much too fat and a little too long.”

  14. Marvin L. Zinn says:

    Since we are trying to create new things for more profits (not health), the next stage will be to genetically modify animals (already begun) and then humans. Wow, when we all appear the same there can be on more racialism and it will not matter which family we join because we (including criminals) cannot be identified.

    God created everything perfect; any change is a defect.

  15. Marie Frank says:

    Richard, I have no idea where you are getting so much disinformation. You failed to cite any sources to back up your claims which suggests you may have an agenda. There has been much documented about the dangers of GMOs and glyphosphate. Try reading Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases III: Manganese, neurological diseases, and associated pathologies at
    There are too many documented hazards posed by this chemical.

  16. Frank Goodman says:

    I am a microbiologist (retired). I have a background in medical microbiology and immunology. I have extensive genetics and physiology in my college courses. I try to keep up with the topics of biology and chemistry as well as politics, sociology, and economics. World hunger is a problem and always will be as long as there are population pressures on our species. GMO can and does help in time. Evolution can over millions of years and species extinction.

    In the matter of allergy alone, many are ill informed or misled by a lack of understanding about the subject. This is not a subject that lends itself to political and emotional reaction for intelligent understanding and decision.

    All allergies are the result of immunological response to any unique chemical substituent group on any molecule that could illicit an immune response in a human or other animal. Plants even have somewhat analogous systems of protection. GMO does not introduce new substituent groups for the immune response, but puts them into animals and plants to improve the potential to provide for human nutrition and sustenance. Allergens include chemical substituents of the self that can be and are immunogenic in the same individual.

    GMO is a human way to cope with nature bypassing the long and terribly dangerous way nature does to protect us now by killing off those unable to cope. We cope with modern knowledge and science, not survival of the fittest to survive and to kill. Go with GMO and leave the minor adjustment to nature and better products.

    Label only those results that have real immediate impact on safety and comfort. (I do not practice journalism or activism, and journalists and activists should not prevent or endanger science with misunderstanding and emotional fear.) Mad science exists only in fiction and in ancient labs of stupidity and error.

  17. K Jean says:

    Its simple really:
    If GMO food companies are proud of their product they would have labeled it day 1. But instead they hire hundreds of lobbyist and lawyers to hide that it is GMO and refuse to label! Been going on since the 70’s.

    They lied to consumers and people died.
    They don’t even eat their own products!

    Don’t believe me, bring in GMO food at next event and ask them to eat it on camera. Then ship GMO food to their offices and ask them to eat it daily (3 meals a day) under a crew of camera men to make sure all people who work for Monsanto eat their own food, this includes all lobbyists, lawyers and their families.

    Start with corn and canola oil and all soy products. Make sure its a huge supply of corm in every meal- and that all animals eat a huge supply of corn. You can make the meals for them to assure it has the highest level of GMO corn in every meal.

    Make sure the camera crew is not in bed with Monsanto, its a private company providing the food and the documentation.

  18. Alan Dooley says:

    If modern agricultural methods to accelerate new varieties and to combat pests are not employed, who wants to select the billions of people around the world who will have to starve to accommodate the old ways?

    • Kim says:

      I REFUSE to eat anything that has been sprayed with weed killers. I have an organic vegetable garden and I rely on natural methods (ladybugs, lacewings, ext..) to control pests. For the weeds in my garden, I pull them up, or I put down cardboard.
      If one plants seeds from Monasido- one can’t save the seeds from the harvest because the seeds would not grow.

      Monasido. Would also SUE the farmer.

      • eli says:

        The seeds are the product of extensive and expensive research by Monsanto. And by law at the present they retain the intellectual property rights to them.

        If these intellectual property rights did not exist, it would be difficult to find the enormous amount of money required to develop these seeds. And these seeds and others resulting from similar research are what have prevented starvation and disease in large parts of the world.

        If you do not want to use these type of seeds or do not need to use them, do not. That is the wonderful choice that you and many of us in the USA have.

      • Sanford Scholton says:

        Its pretty hard to eat anything sprayed with weed killers as the plant would be dead. Unless, for some reason, you bought GMO corn? And, of course, the seeds will grow. How do you think Monsanto gets their seeds. And as for “suing farmers for alleged cross-contamination. However, out of the hundreds of thousands of farmers the company sells seed to annually, they’ve only sued 144 between 1997 and 2010 and that was for violating their patent rights or contract with the company. The company also notes that out of all of those lawsuits, only 9 have gone to trial and any recovered funds are donated.”

        Read more at:

  19. Vickie says:

    Richard your are misinformed. They have facilities for GMO corn research that are underground and like Fort Knox because they worry about accidentally releasing a variety that could run amuck. They r playing god with the food and they do put in animal genes into plants. Do more research and u will be surprised what u find

    • Kim says:

      I would be interested where you get your
      information from.
      Why not offer proof to back up your claim?
      personally, I do not want to eat anything that is GMO. I grow my own veggies organically to ensure that I’m not feeding my family weed killer.
      What do you eat?

    • Lea says:


      Yes, they do have facilities for GMO varieties like the ones you are talking about. However, they also have facilities like those for GMO products that research things such as smallpox, anthrax, C. botulinum (which causes severe food poisoning), E. coli, and many more things that would be harmful to us if they ever got out. Should we stop researching them, which sometimes includes altering them, to figure out how they tick and therefore how we can stop them?

      Genetic engineering of foods works by taking genes from somewhat similar plants or animals that code for characteristics they want (like a better crop yield or a resistance to plant diseases/pesticides) and then splicing it into the gene sequence for the plant. Then they grow it, and make sure it actually does what they want it to do. If the gene is from a species that is too different, it won’t work (as Richard mentioned).

      As Richard said, GMOs decrease the amount of pesticide; you only need one kind to do the job, instead of multiple kinds for various things. Glyphosate kills everything- by making your crops resistant to it, you can use it to knock out everything but your crops.

      The only thing wrong I see with GMOs is how they are used to control farmers, who have to buy new seeds every year in order to continue farming, and who have to buy the company’s specific pesticide in order for the plants to not be eaten by insects. With the way our population is expanding, the normal way of breeding plants to increase the amount of food available is too slow to keep up. Even if all our food was distributed evenly- which it isn’t- there wouldn’t be enough to go around.

      Source: multiple upper-level biology classes and personal research on the matter

      • Frank Goodman says:

        Take one subject from you own comment. Escherichia coli is a very common organism of our environment and in the normal flora of our own guts. It can and does cause urinary infection in some people and animals when a slight mutation or stray culture finds its way into the blood stream or urinary tract. There are many serotypes and strains in all animal species and in some in the environmental water supplies. No organism has been studied in the detail that E. coli has. Escherichia coli is not the dangerous species any more than the grasses and herbs of our lawn and forests. You exhibit a fear emotion of E. coli that is unjustified by the genetics and antigenic properties of the species in general. Fear of the unknown, not the known and well understood. If you do not understand, learn. Ignorance is no excuse, and neither is fear a valid reason to shun a useful science and potential to feed a hungry world. You are not ignorant, but if you do not understand the processes and results of GMO do not rely on stupidity or politics to get your jollies.

        • Lea says:

          I used Escherichia coli as an example because many people are scared of it. I realized after I posted the comment that E. coli is not, in fact, a bacterium that would be only dealt with in the type of setting described.

          Also, since my comment was so long and covered so many broad topics, you might not have caught it, but I have no problem with GMOs, other than the problems I have with the capitalistic quality of restricting their use via patents and other means.

          I apologize for any confusion you may have had, I should have been more clear.

  20. Richard James says:

    Much misinformation. 1. Most genetic engineering does not involve inserting genes from other species. 2. When this is dine, transmission of alertness can be tested for and, if necessary, the trait discontinued. 3. The WHO has not declared glyphosate a known carcinogen. 4. Pesticide use has decreased as a result of genetic engineering. I’ve probably missed a few, but this is enough to totally discredit this feeble attempt.

    • Steve Steiner says:

      Absolutely not true. The very vector used to carry the modification is an antibiotic resistant bacteria. That way they can grow out the modified cells on an antibiotic containing media and only the cells where the gene ‘took’ will survive.

      • J. K Shull says:

        The vector for introducing a gene into a plant is a naturally occurring organism called “crown gall.” This organism often moves genes from one plant to another naturally — even between non-closely related plants. All the geneticists do is introduce a gene using this naturally occurring organism. Really, it does not matter what organism is used — the organism is not incorporated into the recipient plant anyway.

    • J. K Shull says:

      Richard is correct. You can find this information in any undergraduate genetics text. I taught genetics for 34 years and watched the rise of genetic engineering. No development in science has had more scrutiny and had more reviews and more safety studies than GMOs.

  21. Kim says:

    I grow my family’s vegetables. I supplement that with vegetables from a local organic farmer’s market. I would raise chickens but not sure about how to prepare them for meat. Any ideas?

    • Nancy says:

      I have raised chickens, ducks, geese and turkeys, and if you have the heart for it just take an axe and cut off heads, let them bleed out by holding them (or hanging them up). Then just remove feathers, open the bird and remove the entrails, etc. and wash thoroughly. You can remove the skin before cooking or after if you do not want skin. If you want to bake it leave it whole, otherwise cut up for frying.

  22. Andrew Stuart Ingham says:

    Notwithstanding the concerns of ordinary people about the effects of GMO food in their diet, consider the consequences on the cost of non-GMO food products.

    Grandmothers two generations prior to mine called organic food, “food”! When the term of organic food was introduced, the price of these items were only affordable to those with a domestic budget to pay.

    Since there appears to be a plethora of food products containing GMO ingredients, it is not enough to say” stop buying it, you have a choice”. The consumer is vulnerable to the marketplace by what producers, wholesalers, supermarkets, and local retailers put on the shelf. From here onwards, I will call non-GMO food “proper food”.

    Pressing for labelling of food products (voluntarily or by legislation) is only one action. Here are the additional possible steps: 1) Grow your own, or start a community co-operative to grow together. 2) Buy products directly from a proper food farmer. 3) Only shop at stores that sell proper food only; retailers and supermarkets already listen to what consumers want by collecting data and suggestion schemes.
    4) Press for removal of legislation that prevents farmers from farming proper food.

    If you combine the above actions, there is a greater likelihood of the food industry to return to a level playing field. If you do not, and simply press for GMO ingredient labelling, you are likely to see the helter-skelter of rich and poor/healthy and unhealthy divide further. This is something that all mankind cannot afford…

  23. Mel White says:

    There is a reason why so many other countries either ban GMO products or require GMO labeling. North America seems totally oblivious to the potential long term harm to humans via GE crops and much higher concentrations of poisons like roundup in our food supply.

    However, if consumers refuse to buy that “frankenfood”, companies will be forced to stop selling it.

    For these reasons I get great comfort shopping at Trader Joe’s.

    • Glee217 says:

      Trader joe’s DOES NOT have NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED LABELS in any products labeled by TJ.

      A better store is Wholefoods. In a year or two ALL or MOST of the products they sell will carry the NON-GMO PROJECT VERIFIED LABELS.

      Also if you google TJ with foodbabe it shows that they are hidding something about gmo products.

  24. Shirley Nunes-Thornton says:

    Be cause I have so many allergies to foods that contain FDA approved artificial colors, I eat very few processed foods.. ,(Thank goodness for The Wild Oats Company ) Now I have to worry about GMO’s ??? I have a compost bin that is over run with something that resembles Spaghetti Squash, but when I opened was nothing like that… Could this have been a GMO that I ate last fall??
    Companies should be mandated to state whether their product is the result of a GMO !!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *