GMO Ketchup Backlash Goes Viral After Heinz Joins Fight Against Proposition 37
| WTF News |
Have you heard the one about Heinz’s GMO ketchup yet? No?
Seen what GMO food has been shown to do to lab rats?
Look at the tumors in the picture below and read the following closely.
The new economic quarter just started on Wall Street on October 1st, it usually represents the start of new trading activity and strategies for investors. For companies, typically it begins a new period of sales initiatives and marketing, but for HJ Heinz Inc, they have spent the start of the 4th quarter attempting to defuse a public relations time bomb. HJ Heinz, maker of Heinz Ketchup and other condiments, has been battling a public relations brushfire starting to consume the company’s Facebook page. Recently, a flood of people have taken to the Heinz “Like” page as news spread that some ketchup products contain GMO ingredients and questionable high fructose corn syrup content (which can also be GMO). Consumers are particularly upset by the new branding touting a line of ketchup as “organic”.
The backlash started on September 23rd and soon, the posts in protest surpassed the average rate of fan posts. Prior to Sept. 23rd, the facebook page was getting anywhere from 1 to 5 posts a day.
The most important comment came early on when a commenter said:
I don’t really have a choice when just about any restaurant I visit serves the standard kind… Like Gerald said above, lead by example and put out only the best product to your customers. You think you’ll go bankrupt by going to your simply Heinz or organic versions?
No response from Heinz, which embodies the whole problem; a critical question which requires and answer in the form of a label and neither the regulators or the company steps up, leaving consumers in the dark. This silence is even more frustrating for the health conscious eater, because this is more life consciousness in terms of the threat. Social media is a dynamic forum that companies have to react to in real time. There are many others mentioning both HFCS and GMO, in total, 400+ of 550 wall posts since Sep. 23 and 250+ alone on October 6th. Looking at the continued posts through October 15th, this may be a backlash that sticks. Others have sought clarification, including a WTF News call to Heinz, which was not returned. To date, the company has not provided a response on their page and the inquiries are still growing.
A distinction made in the PR chain of command and it is clearly, do not discuss GMO at all. There are many responses that ask about Proposition 37 in California, a bill proposed to require labels on food products that contain GMOs. This is the canned response Heinz prepared for copying and pasting by their social media team.
Hi Bernard, Thanks for reaching out to us. Heinz, along with a growing number of doctors, grocers, small businesses and taxpayer groups are opposed to Proposition 37. This initiative would require we provide misleading and confusing information to our customers as well as add new costs to California taxpayers.
That seems reasonable but when you dig deeper, all the posts solely discussing GMO go unanswered. Some ask about GMO and Prop 37 in tandem and Heinz copied/pasted the above statement on virtually all posts and simply left the GMO questions open-ended.
Why? The silence is indicative of at least unknown GMO content.
The general question of whether the ketchup contains GMO ingredients is complicated because of the food chain hardly distinguishes it. What people may not have considered while asking Heinz about GMO is that the company is unsure itself. In a trust-but-verify world of tungsten-filled gold bars, there isn’t much you can blithely trust. There is a lot of room between the farm and the table for not knowing if ingredients are GMO and the burden shouldn’t necessarily just be on the processors and sellers but it definitely starts there. It is a societal education burden which must be carried by companies and consumers for any sustainable solution to be achieved, economically or health-wise.
The problem some consumers have is two fold and started with sugar content and sweeteners. In the last few years, the company began transitioning away from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) as groups of consumers reject other products with HFCS in it. Heinz ketchup has had high fructose corn syrup in it for years but with the corn supply being taken over by genetically modified corn and the volatility of corn prices, it is probably a situation Heinz wanted to avoid altogether. The problem is that Heinz is now using sugar believed to be derived from GMO sugar beets and Heinz itself can’t even guarantee that it is not using the genetically modified ingredients.
Moreover, it’s becoming impossible to tell whether sugar is GMO and with various forms of “sugar” in everything, the GMO content starts to add up.
As a percentage of the market, GMO corn makes up 95 percent of US supply which goes into HFCS and other corn sugar products (not to mention other corn filler ingredients). The sugar beet numbers are even worse with an estimated 95% of the supply being GMO. It is also estimated that more than half of domestic sugar production is obtained from sugar beets (as opposed to cane sugar), meaning the market is probably in the 40-55% range of GMO content as a whole.
Sugar production in the US is virtually taken over by GMO content now. The excerpt below describes the sugar production situation which is now plagued by GMO ingredients since the first approval of GMO beets in 2005.
Nearly 95 percent of the U.S. sugar beet production is grown from genetically modified seeds — a swift change from 2005 when they were first approved for planting. More than half of our domestic sugar production comes from sugar beets, the remainder comes from sugar cane.
With sugar or a sweetener of some kind in virtually all processed foods, consumers have been alerted to change their consumption patterns to prevent the side effects of induced diabetes, obesity and others. The sugar battle to decrease the number of grams of actual sugar that must be on the label has raged in the form of hiding behind HFCS, or using sugar alternatives like aspartame and sucralose which both have troubling side effects. Sugar content is not a new issue, but it has been defused by companies who have sought these alternatives. The latest trend in studies even links HFCS with negative brain conditions.
A new study out of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has found that consuming HFCS can actually destroy memory, slow mental function, and ultimately deteriorate brain performance.
Many companies, like Heinz, have had the luxury of flying under the radar of public perception if their products aren’t widely recognized to contain a lot of sugar.
Heinz is currently caught in the middle of two poor strategies to combat this problem. Their main, generally labeled products contain large portions of HFCS and now a specialty product targeting organic buyers is said to contain GMO derived sugar. This seems like a particularly poor strategy because not only is the flagship product subject to GMO uncertainty, but products geared towards GMO-aware and organic seeking customers are even more likely to contain GMO ingredients. Now that the alternative media has picked up on this, it’s only a matter of time before social media’s reach creates a PR problem for Heinz.
Should Heinz let this problem fester too long, the company may even see a hit to the bottom line in sales and in the fragile stock market, neither of which is ideally timed as food producers jockey for global supremacy. Maybe it’s time for the short sellers to start targeting the stock in a humane, vulture-like way.
This comes at a particularly bad time to be on the wrong side of GMO food. Proposition 37 on the California ballot this November is focused on mandating the labeling of GMO food sold in the state. The central issue surrounding GMO foods is not just whether it’s bad for you, but how you can actively avoid those ingredients if you are concerned about it. GMO food does not have to be labeled currently, but there is a growing movement of people who want companies to be required to disclose if their products have GMO in it.
The common issues are how to fairly define and regulate GMO and minimize the unnecessary burden on companies to enable a profitable economic market. Heinz’s statement is a declaration that they wish to be a part of the solution, but the $489,000 contributed to Prop 37’s defeat and PR silence is the bigger problem.
Producers are claiming the regulations will be oppressive and will hurt business, but as usual, no possible solutions are offered but the status quo. GM technology is running over the opposition in this case and major food producers are just lining up behind them.
The wild card is that consumers can force the market to react by choosing other products, buying patterns shift quickly as behavior basically goes viral when knowledge spreads and alternatives develop. Corporate profits are in a tenuous position right now as global economic growth is slowing, even the slightest bumps in sales are felt. GMO backlash is something a company needs to avoid if possible, and in the case of Heinz, it’s a crisis they need to get on top of early.
The rise of social media and increased awareness through the viral spread of important information produces rapid shifts, as evidenced by the pink slime controversy and beef. The rise in popularity of organic products has forced many supermarkets to add to their inventory. Can Heinz afford to let this controversy focus in on their products? It can be fixed with a simple ad campaign and a few better ingredients which can still be cost friendly.
Just what is GMO food and why is this issue so important? The following excerpts are good explanations of what GMO crops are and why they cause long term health damage.
Via Natural News.
GMOs are created within the seeds of chosen parent crops in laboratories by “splicing” genes from completely unrelated species into those seeds. Normal plant hybrids are cultivated in soil over time by cross pollinating closely related plants.
Food is genetically modified when genes from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans are inserted into its DNA to alter the organism’s characteristics. This is done to food crops in order to create plants that are resistant to the herbicides used to destroy weeds and to enable them to produce their own poison to kill insects harmful to crops.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin is a soil bacterium that has been used as a pesticide spray for many years. When insects bite into the plant, the poison they ingest splits open their stomach, killing them. Though GMO foods that contain this toxin are resistant to insects, with continued exposure insects may develop a resistance to it, requiring ever-stronger herbicides and dangerous chemicals to keep crops insect-free. Resistant insects will then proceed to destroy crops as they did before, but now no pesticide will be effective, and we’re back to square one.
GMO crops are justified and promoted by companies under the guise that they are the fast way to higher crop yields and more resilient against Monsanto’s own Roundup weed killer. Recently the crop yield benefit has been disappointing, they are more susceptible to drought, bugs are developing resistance to eating it and GMO is producing the feared “superweeds”.
The part that is worrisome is the same active ingredients in the crops is what is shown to be attacking critical body functions in test animals. As Alex Jones constantly trumpets, in most lab studies, by the third generation, the subjects are sterile and much more susceptible to cancer, sometimes with “hair growing inside their mouths” and other horrible mutations. Numerous studies have confirmed the harmful effects and they all have the same hallmarks, consider the study released by the International Journal of Biological Sciences, analyzing the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health.
“Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity….These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown.”
The full effects of bioaccumulation is unknown but the signs of it in the food chain are clear. Many examples of entire herds being afflicted with the same gastrointestinal symptoms immediately and in some cases, recovering as soon as feed is removed.
As more animal studies are proving, there may be serious drawbacks to this technology. On May 19th, 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) advised “physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning the dangers of genetically modified foods.”
They asked for a moratorium on GM foods, and encouraged long-term independent studies and labeling. The AAEM stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. Their statement concluded, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”
In India, when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Bt corn was also associated with the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.
As the food accumulates more GM supply, the toxicity detected in the other end of the food chain will show up eventually, maybe first as a few benign effects can be detected and then the mutations as a result of long term exposure.
A 2011 study at a Canadian hospital showed an alarming statistic which should be a warning for all GM foods.
In 2011, doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found Bt-toxin in the blood of:
– 93 percent of pregnant women tested
– 80 percent of umbilical blood in their babies, and
– 67 percent of non-pregnant women
It is unknown the origin of all the food the subjects were eating but for the presence to be so concentrated, especially in umbilical blood of newborns, that discovery alone should warrant intense scrutiny of GMOs. More problematic, that particular test is only looking at one specific toxin from one crop, GM corn, which inevitably leads you to the heart of the problem. Exactly how much toxicity is building up in our bodies as a result of various GMO crops?
The problem of GMO proliferation is something that escapes mainstream conversation and the numbers on GMO are eye-popping. The list below covers the different GMO crop varieties available on the US market and estimates of their supply percentage.
The Nine GE Crops on the Market in the U.S.:
Corn – 85%
Soybeans – 91%
Canola – 85%
Cotton – 88%
Sugar Beets – 95%
Alfalfa – Reliable numbers are unavailable after re-release*
Hawaiian Papaya – 86%
Zucchini – 10-20%*
Yellow Crookneck Squash – 10-20%*
The foods listed are found in many foods in the form of ingredients listed below. Reading the ingredient list on the foods in your personal diet, you’ll find many will contain more than one of these in the same product often.
… dairy products from cows that were injected with rbGH, food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and the artificial sweetener aspartame may also contain GMOs. Any food containing these ingredients or foods derived from them should ideally be avoided, though this can be difficult, as a large percentage of foods contain ingredients derived from corn. These include:
Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)
Cellulose and methylcellulose
Corn starch, food starch or modified food starch
Dextrin or maltodextrin
Dextrose, fructose or glucose
High-fructose corn syrup
Mono- and diglycerides
Monosodium glutamate (MSG)
You should also stay away from soy products, as most of them are derived from genetically modified soybeans. This includes soy flour, lecithin, soy protein, soy isolate and isoflavone.
GMO foods can hide in many forms and that list is not all inclusive and come in foods that are clearly unhealthy and health-conscious foods alike. Large companies are always coming up with new processes and ingredients to save time and money, but often with questionable health effects.
The long term effects of the crops on humans are unclear, but the trends observed are just as disturbing as in the animals.
The only published human feeding study revealed that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function, meaning that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins producing pesticides continuously in our intestinal flora, perhaps one reason why doctors have reported a huge increase in gastrointestinal problems over the last decade when genetically modified food has become widespread.
There’s even new reports that GMO genes programmed in the food is surviving digestion and can alter the body’s growth process, essentially reprogramming some cells via micro RNA, see the video below with Mike Adams of Natural News
Continuation of these trends will feed a cycle of more disease, more healthcare costs and eventually more GMO as food will have to be increasingly engineered for the “sensitive” stomach. Entrenched dependence is the common theme in GMO, which in this case involves tailoring the food to force human digestion mechanics to be more compatible with GMO food and vice versa in a toxic mix of research convergence. It’s already occurring in the developed world as the link between food allergies and GMO becomes more concrete, including a 50%+ increase in soy allergies in the UK.
Evidence suggests powerful interests are trying to exacerbate the cycle described, to further new world order goals, by encouraging it from supply side economics as well. The scary part is those theories match projections by the Rockefeller foundation decades ago, read that article for all the answers you could want on the elite family GMO conspiracy.
Topsoil in many parts of the world are already plagued by chemical and mineral deficiencies from different factors violating the tenets of crop rotation farming. The result is inconsistent crop yield and sometimes difficulty growing certain crops, both of which are problems modern large scale agriculture has created a market to solve. The need for a constant supply and a farmer’s need to turn a profit all leads to the proliferation of yield boosting tactics all ending up at GMO crops.
While the pattern described is closer to natural market economics, what’s feared is that there is a conspiracy to reinforce those poor conditions through geo-engineering while at the same time, research is converging to make GMO crops more friendly to the growing conditions that result from long term geo-engineering. The goal is to create an environment where the only successful agriculture firms will be forced to use GMO technology.
GMO seeds also cross pollinate and infect the non-GMO crop supply and will eventually infect a critical majority of all crop supplies. A 2010 study also noted evidence that GM plants are growing in the wild now, miles from the original location of planting.
“What we’ve demonstrated in this study is a large-scale escape of a genetically modified crop in the United States,” says Cindy Sagers, an ecologist at the University of Arkansas, who led the study.
Few scientists believe that the canola plants pose an environmental risk, but the study highlights the ease with which some genetically modified plants can spread beyond their fields.
One year and 3,000 miles later, the group has clear evidence that genetically modified, feral canola is growing across much of North Dakota. Of the 406 samples collected, 86 percent were genetically altered versions of the plant.
Moreover, two samples contained multiple genes from different species of genetically modified plants. “It indicates that these things are probably self-perpetuating outside of cultivation and have been there for a couple of generations at least,” Sagers says.
The combination of these creates a problem which can virtually eliminate natural food production, if left unchecked, at least on an individual and small farming scale.
This is a key component of Agenda 21, the plan to achieve the resulting slave-like conditions resulting for the masses. The new world order, behind the UN’s Agenda 21 program, will eventually lead us into the complete control of resources, and by extension, upward mobility. If that sounds farfetched, follow the money, it all leads to megacorporate control of food, stubbornly high prices globally and the consumer broke with a lack of alternative food options.
For a preview of what will be the norm worldwide, look at the crisis in India where it is said “a farmer commits suicide every 30 minutes” in a 2011 article.
When Prince Charles claimed thousands of Indian farmers were killing themselves after using GM crops, he was branded a scaremonger. In fact, as this chilling dispatch reveals, it’s even WORSE than he feared.
For official figures from the Indian Ministry of Agriculture do indeed confirm that in a huge humanitarian crisis, more than 1,000 farmers kill themselves here each month.
Simple, rural people, they are dying slow, agonising deaths. Most swallow insecticide – a pricey substance they were promised they would not need when they were coerced into growing expensive GM crops.
It seems that many are massively in debt to local money-lenders, having over-borrowed to purchase GM seed.
Nor were the farmers told that these seeds require double the amount of water. This has proved a matter of life and death.
With rains failing for the past two years, many GM crops have simply withered and died, leaving the farmers with crippling debts and no means of paying them off.
Having taken loans from traditional money lenders at extortionate rates, hundreds of thousands of small farmers have faced losing their land as the expensive seeds fail, while those who could struggle on faced a fresh crisis.
When crops failed in the past, farmers could still save seeds and replant them the following year.
But with GM seeds they cannot do this. That’s because GM seeds contain so- called ‘terminator technology’, meaning that they have been genetically modified so that the resulting crops do not produce viable seeds of their own.
As a result, farmers have to buy new seeds each year at the same punitive prices. For some, that means the difference between life and death.
The crazier trend is that Monsanto likes to bankrupt its competition by seeking out farmers and sue them for “stealing technology” if they keep the GMO seeds they yield as a result. That’s almost the crude equivalent of throwing stuff into your neighbor’s yard, claiming they stole it and suing as a result without paying royalties. Some farmers have even had the bad luck of cross pollination and Monsanto even sued them. Another scourge they are developing are called Terminator seeds which are sterile seeds generated after one crop harvest, another loving gift forcing you to buy more of their patented seeds.
Is that just good business or are they literally patenting altered life leaving nature no alternative? Get the picture now?
The population will also be subjected to more control over minds and body with governments in many countries suggesting adding lithium to the water supply to pacify people. There are even extreme calls for ritalin also.
How quickly these theories are coming to fruition is up for debate, but one thing is clear, people are watching. News has begun spreading about the new varieties of GMO food coming soon to a supermarket shelf near you.
The new process will cut in half the time it takes for new GE seeds and crops to enter the market.
Bayer Glyphosate and Isoxaflutole Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0029)
Syngenta Corn Rootworm Resistant Corn (APHIS-2012-0024)
Okanagan Non-Browning Apple (APHIS-2012-0025)
Dow 2,4-D, Glyphosate and Glufosinate tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0032)
Monsanto Dicamba Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0047)
BASF Imidazolinone Tolerant Soybean (APHIS-2012-0028)
Monsanto High Yield Soybean (APHIS-2012-0020)
Monsanto Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0035)
Pioneer Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0031)
Pioneer Glyphosate Tolerant Canola (APHIS-2012-0031)
Genective Glyphosate Tolerant Corn (APHIS-2012-0046)
The debate over GMO food safety goes back and forth between activists and the big money lobbyists and industry benefactors. The discourse usually involves new studies showing a common sense pattern of cancer, disease and infertility caused by steady diets of GMO food and then Monsanto and other biotech firms paying PR firms to simply lie and obfuscate the truth to discredit the studies. The closest things have come to a legal breakthrough has been Proposition 37, up for vote on Nov. 6th. Large companies are fighting this legislation fiercely for a few reasons, namely because the ingredient list for popular consumer foods would have to change fast and both the time and supply crunch would be a problem for prices and competition. Companies, particularly Heinz are saying that the current proposal in Calfornia is flawed in its construction, would impose horrible costs and responsibilities on the producers, cut into profits and as a result, are committing capital to lobbyists to see that the bill does not pass. Therein lies the problem, it is safer for companies to sit on the sidelines and make the continued profits, while consumers suffer more unknown organ damage. This year, Monsanto has even escalated the battle by threatening to sue the entire State of Vermont if they pursue a bill to force GMO labels. Instead of make a quality product that people want to eat and won’t mutate their DNA, Monsanto would rather continue the status quo, and even export genetic poison timebombs to poor people as food aid.
Lawmakers in Vermont are looking to regulate food labels so customers can know which products are made from genetically modified crops, but agricultural giants Monsanto say they will sue if the state follows through.
If the bill in question, H-722 (the “VT Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) passes the state Senate and House, manufacturers will be required to label products that are created either partially or in full from a genetically modified organism, or GMO. Such man-made crops have become a trademark of the billion-dollar Monsanto corporation, and in the past the company has gone to great lengths to keep themselves the number-one name in American agriculture, even if those profits are made possible from playing God.
Monsanto is going mad over the proposal, however, which would also make them unable to label their productions as “natural,” “naturally made,” “naturally grown” or “all natural,” if, in fact, they are not. For the corporation, it would seem that moving products and making money is much more of a worthwhile venture than telling its customers what exactly they are consuming.
With Vermont legislators now standing in the way of what could mean even more money for Monsanto, the company says they will sue the state if H-722 is approved. Now in fear of a lawsuit in the future, lawmakers in Vermont have put a hold on any future voting regarding the bill. If history is any indication, Monsanto is more than likely to have their way and win yet another battle.
Labels would undoubtedly wake up an outsized portion of the population to the dangers of GMO food and as many companies are worried about, a change in consumer sentiment would force the removal of GMO ingredients from the marketplace. Companies forced to use GMO ingredients for the sake of profitability step out of the way while companies selling GMO seeds continue to stand up for the “safety” of their products. The studies offered in defense of GMO food are often too short and flawed in nature, or otherwise, outright scientific fraud. The other method of creating GMO propaganda is to discredit the studies which show the dangers of eating a GMO food diet. The lunacy of the debate is that companies are attempting to discredit studies showing GMO food is unsafe by saying the studies are too short (and flawed) to generate concrete conclusions, but studies offered in support of GMO safety are shorter in duration and don’t measure the right metrics.
Monsanto even banned GMO foods from their company cafeterias. Telling?
The latest trick upheld by regulators is the language of the label.
Admittedly, products claiming to be 100% natural do have a higher chance of being better than products not carrying the label, but it’s important to know what the label really means. The definition of a ‘natural’ product has no defined parameters in law or regulation, so essentially these products can be — and many times are — as contaminated as what the consumer may have originally tried to avoid. Under federal regulations, it’s entirely acceptable to include additives that are not even deemed as ‘natural’, or use unnatural preparation methods like genetic modification or pasteurization. The product only has to be part ‘natural’.
This is the tricky nature of the food industry’s labeling and marketing, the specific use or omission of a word can hide undesired ingredients. The breach of trust is what’s egregious, which Whole Foods found out earlier this month when news spread that their stores carry unmarked GMO products. More consumers are becoming conscious of the ingredients in their diet and labeling is usually the deciding factor. Consumers specifically trying to avoid certain ingredients and are likely being attracted by what is an honest claim like “gluten-free”, but the . In order to maintain price position in the supermarket, companies will use other cheap filler ingredients to save money. This isn’t a new phenomenon, but the problem is those fillers are increasingly GMO derived, especially gluten-free foods. If the gluten-free crowd only knew, can you hear me Matt Miller?
Just how serious about GMO food is Monsanto? When a bee research center continuously put out studies that GMO crops were not only infecting non-GMO supply, but also causing catastrophic disease and death in bee colonies, Monsanto bought them out.
Monsanto is literally turning into Umbrella Corp. from the Resident Evil video game/movie series. They’ve recently purchased the oft-renamed mercenary private army company formerly known as Blackwater. In a world of social unrest and riots, it’s easy to see the value in that purchase.
If it’s so unsafe, why doesn’t the Food and Drug Administration protect us, you ask? The large food processors and their supply chain partners are actively giving money and threatening lawsuits to combat local state initiatives for labeling GMO products. The problem is also firmly entrenched in Washington at the Food and Drug Administration as the revolving door between government and the private sector has been good to former Monsanto executives. The current food safety “czar” is the former chief lobbyist for Monsanto, Michael Taylor. All of this has led to an environment where GMO foods have simply breezed past FDA scrutiny, giving the green light to GMO foods.
‘Michael Taylor was just appointed senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. This is the same man that was in charge of FDA policy when GMO’s were allowed into the US food supply without undergoing a single test to determine their safety. He “had been Monsanto’s attorney before becoming policy chief at the FDA [and then] he became Monsanto’s Vice President and chief lobbyist. This month [he] became the senior advisor to the commissioner of the FDA. He is now America’s food safety czar. This is no joke”.’
See the chart below for more info on the GMO friendly FDA.
So with the crops widespread and infecting the remaining clean supply, how do we stop this scourge from spreading?
Avoiding GMO food has become tougher as special interests (major food companies, especially Monsanto) block labeling requirements as other countries, go beyond labels to full bans. Since there are no labels, it is basically a free for all in trying to figure out what foods contain GMO ingredients, with the only relatively certain protection being to buy organic and from trusted brands that make it a priority. That can get very expensive, or you can simply change your diet. Neither of these are usually acceptable to people from a commitment standpoint, but now is the time to start protecting your health more in the world of skyrocketing health costs. Cancer costs can readily bankrupt you even with insurance. The risks aren’t just for cancer, but a host of other issues related to hormone imbalance, gastrointestinal disorder, neurological effects, possible immunological deficiencies and more.
GMO is about to become harder to stop, if the new Farm bill gets passed with favorable terms for crop approval, as mentioned earlier, the time for new crops to hit the market will be cut in half.
What’s the big deal with the new bill? Most importantly, the House version of the 2012 Farm Bill contains three industry-friendly provisions, numbered 10011, 10013, and 10014. Collectively, they have come to be known as the “Monsanto Rider,” and the name is entirely appropriate. If passed, this bill would make it more difficult to stem the tide of GMO foods hitting store shelves.
These three provisions in the 2012 Farm Bill would grant regulatory powers solely to the United States Department of Agriculture, preventing other federal agencies from reviewing GMO applications and preventing the USDA from accepting outside money for further study. The bill would also shorten the deadline for approval to one year, with an optional 180-day extension.
And here’s the kicker: the approval time bomb. If the USDA misses the truncated review deadline, the GMO in question is granted automatic approval.
That article deserves a WTFRLY…
How is that for privatization and smaller government? Now you test your own food. Austerity is coming to America…
Given that you are what you eat, do you really want to continue eating food with the GMO equivalent of varying street drug concoctions? It’s not just Monsanto that is producing this garbage, the number of companies is growing (BASF, BAYER, Sygenta, Genective, Dow to name a few).
In short, if you don’t want to experiment with GMO food, this is an issue that needs to be shared with your friends and family so that buying choices can made changed.
These are Natural News’ 10 GMO foods to avoid, just by being aware that much of the supply is modified.
3. Cotton – Like corn and soy, cotton has been designed to resist pesticides. It is considered food because its oil can be consumed. Its introduction in Chinese agriculture has produced a chemical that kills cotton bollworm, reducing the incidences of pests not only in cotton crops but also in neighboring fields of soybeans and corn. Incidentally, thousands of Indian farmers suffered severe rashes upon exposure to BT cotton.
4. Papaya – The virus-resistant variety of papaya was commercially introduced in Hawaii in 1999. Transgenic papayas comprised three-fourths of the total Hawaiian papaya crop. Monsanto bestowed upon Tamil Nadu Agricultural University in Coimbatore technology for developing papaya resistant to the ringspot virus in India.
5. Rice – This staple food from South East Asia has now been genetically modified to contain a high amount of vitamin A. Allegedly, there are reports of rice varieties containing human genes to be grown in the US. The rice will create human proteins useful for dealing with infant diarrhea in the 3rd world. China Daily, an online journal, reported potential serious public health and environment problems with genetically modified rice considering its tendency to cause allergic reactions with the concurrent possibility of gene transfers.
6. Tomatoes – Tomatoes have now been genetically engineered for longer shelf life, preventing them from easily rotting and degrading. In a test conducted to determine the safety of GM tomatoes, some animal subjects died within a few weeks after consuming GM tomatoes.
7. Rapeseed – In Canada, this crop was renamed canola to differentiate it from non-edible rapeseed. Food stuff produced from rapeseed includes rapeseed oi (canola oil) l used to process cooking oil and margarine. Honey can also be produced from GM rapeseed. German food surveillance authorities discovered as much as a third of the total pollen present in Canadian honey may be from GM pollen. In fact, some honey products from Canada were also discovered to have pollen from GM rapeseed.
8. Dairy products – It has been discovered that 22 percent of cows in the U.S. were injected with recombinant (genetically modified) bovine growth hormone (rbGH). This Monsanto created hormone artificially forces cows to increase their milk production by 15 percent. Milk from cows treated with this milk inducing hormone contains increased levels of IGF-1 (insulin growth factors-1). Humans also have IGF-1 in their system. Scientists have expressed concerns that increased levels of IGF-1 in humans have been associated with colon and breast cancer.
9. Potatoes – Mice fed with potatoes engineered with Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki Cry 1 were found to have toxins in their system. Despite claims to the contrary, this shows that Cry1 toxin was stable in the mouse gut. When the health risks were revealed, it sparked a debate.
10. Peas – Peas that have been genetically modified have been found to cause immune responses in mice and possibly even in humans. A gene from kidney beans was inserted into the peas creating a protein that functions as a pesticide.
The sugar supply has an advocate also, there’s a non-GMO beet registry.
This link also has a list of possible GM ingredients broken down by company.
GMO is everywhere and it’s presence is usually a nasty surprise.
September revealed that both the US and China were live testing GMO rice on people. The rise of GMO problems in pets is the latest trend noticed.
This article started with Heinz ketchup, but the issue is multi layered and widespread. The purpose for this article is to highlight this as a mile marker on the GMO highway and to let inform those who see it that it is time to turn around.
Americans put ketchup on everything, if ever there were a national crisis, isn’t it this? It is a staple in households of all ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds. Say what you will about Americans, but there are some things they won’t put up with when alerted to an important issue. The most recent issue of national importance where the collective voice of America stood up was the backlash against the NFL over using replacement referees during the contract dispute with permanent officials which needed the collective retribution of fans to finally force a deal. GMO foods infecting the food supply is a problem that needs the same kind of reaction. Look at those rats with the tumors one more time and ask yourself if you want to chance it with GMO food. If you can’t even be certain of what kind of ketchup you’re eating at a restaurant or from Heinz in general, that has to be the final straw and could be the catalyst for national change. There is a full boycott on condiments at WTF News right now. GMO food is regulated or banned in various ways throughout Europe and recently gained wide attention in Russia.
Politicians are even waking up, like Dennis Kucinich
It’s time to wake up about genetically modified food, even if Proposition 37 is a poorly constructed law, there needs to be national conversation about what is in our food.
Ketchup may not be the food that will do the most GMO related damage but for the person that wants to avoid GMO buildup, it’s impossible to tell with all condiments, not just ketchup. Talk about uncertainty, if this were related to tax policy, the political backlash on mainstream media would be deafening. Just by sheer estimation, most people reading this are eating GMO in at least one meal a day, probably more. The effects of GMO food and the related health costs are more than enough reason to simply wake up and choose your diet wisely.
Cancer rates are increasing exponentially, organ failure continues a slow grind higher and hormone imbalances are becoming a more common occurence. At this rate, it’s not hard to envision a world like the movie Repo Men in which people will most likely need a life sustaining artificial organ which costs as much as a house (relatively) and will make you a debt slave overnight.