Companies Against GMO Labeling

The list gets longer... These companies claim there is nothing wrong with GMO's, so why are they spending huge sums of money to fight the GMO Initiative "Right to Know?" They are trying to keep you and your family in the dark about what you're really eating.


Monsanto Company $4,208,000.00
E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. $4,025,200.00
PepsiCo, Inc. $1,716,300.00
BASF Plant Science $1,642,300.00
Bayer CropScience $1,618,400.00
Dow Agrosciences LLC $1,184,800.00
Nestle USA, Inc. $1,169,400.00
Coca-Cola North America $1,164,400.00
ConAgra Foods $1,076,700.00
Syngenta Corporation $821,300.00
Kellogg Company $632,500.00
General Mills, Inc. $519,400.00
Del Monte $484,125
General Mills $388,798
Bumble Bee Foods $270,426
Sara Lee $246,766
Campbell Soup $179,545
Dole $125,681
Ocean Spray $60,546
Land O’Lakes $59,321
Hero North America $58,028
Kraft Foods $34,404
Godiva $30,666
Smithfield $14,286
Reily Foods Co. $13,214
Heinz $10,444
Idahoan Foods $7,181
Mars $5,773
Bunge North America $5,193
Croplife $5,000
Abbott Nutrition $3,918

To see the specific products mfg'd by the Big Food listed above, go here http://www.anh-usa.org/boycott-companies-fighting-prop-37/ I will be printing out this list and taking it with me on my next food shopping trip!

There are two ways to tell Food Companies You Know They're Working Behind the Scenes to Keep You from Knowing If Their Products Contain GMOs!

You can boycott their products, and sign your name here: http://www.anh-usa.org/our-gmo-boycott-is-expanding/

 

Probably because idiots have gone batshit and spew falsehoods about it.

 

Better living through chemicals!

 

Thanks for the links, I think it's important for consumers to know exactly what is in the food they're buying for their families. Manufacturers change their labels all the time in a bid to add claims of health benefits or make their packages smaller (while seemingly the same size), so the argument that it's too expensive to add this information is patently false.

 

Who are the "idiots" spewing falsehoods? And what do you believe are the falsehoods?

 

Idiots are the people that promote hysteria about genetic modification of crops, which is nothing new. It has been in practice since the begining of agriculture.

 

That's not a meaningful answer. It sounds more like a soundbite.

 

I'm trying to educate myself on this topic so I can make sound and healthy choices for my family. The reason "it has been in practice since the beginning of agriculture"....does not make it necessarily good or safe. People have been smoking for "almost the beginning of civilization", and only fairly recently (last 30+ years), have we truly began to do something about what it does to people. Trusting these companies about GMOs sort of seems like trusting a cigarette company when they say they have not deceived the public. Why is it much different?

 

Are you maybe referring to hybrid crops? There is nothing unnatural or of particular concern with hybridization as this is a result of two different plants cross pollinating naturally producing a totally natural product which could have been created on it's own without help from humans. GMO crops have not been around since the beginning of agriculture. The first GMO crop was introduced in the 80s/90s and is a completely unnatural intervention of fusing DNA from an unrelated species (sometimes not even plants) with the target plant.

 

Very true. In the old days, farmers used very simple breeding techniques to replicate the desired traits for the next generation. Now, scientists use viruses to insert genes inside of cells or nuclei, forever altering the plants DNA, which is the blueprint for the plant.

Now, can the genes from GMO crops find their way into your own DNA? Could they enter the bacteria that normally inhabit your digestive tract, altering your own bacteria's natural traits? If GMO are developed to produce their own pesticide to resist bugs and by ingesting this it transfers to the bacteria in your gut then the natural bacteria in your gut no longer functions normally. What could the consequences be? Toxicity? Allergies? Do you really want to find out? Or maybe this is the reason we have a growing population with sensitivity to gluten, dairy and other food stuff.

You see, there has not been enough studies to justify the continuence or expansion of this food science. Studies that (imo) should have been conducted 15-20 years. The current studies the French are conducting with subject mice are not promising.

Right now, consumers do not have much of a choice since the FDA does not require gmo foods be labeled. And without properly labeling the foods we put on our tables is (to me), a game of Russian Roulette.

 

I'm just saying that the reason they are spending so much money to fight this is because of the hysteria surrounding the issue.

 

it's not just the gmo issues, most food companies do not want any amount of accuracy in the labels.

 

Ok, I'll bite, since it isn't explained: What is a "GMO"? Genetically modified [what?]

 

It's a genetically modified organism.

And yes, humans have been selectively breeding plants & animals since the beginning of agriculture. But as mentioned above, GMOs are something different. It's the insertion of DNA from one species into that of another, in order to directly cause more desireable traits.

GMOs can potentially be problematic for people with certain allergies, and their effects on ecosystems have not been well-studied.

If I'm not mistaken, many food producers are actively persuing laws to PREVENT other companies from labeling their products as GMO-free, or "not irradiated", or from labelling country of origin. The justification for such proposed legislation is that they don't want customers to be confused.

 

This is part of the problem. In the US, we are eating tons of GMO food but very few even have a clue it exists. Something like 90% of all corn, soy, and canola grown in the US is GMO. Now look at the ingredient list of just about any product on the shelf. You'll have a hard time finding one that doesn't contain at least some form of corn, soy, or canola. Currently they are working on approving a GMO wheat as well. Even a food listed as "all natural" is likely to contain GMOs unless it's also certified organic. Fortunately organic requirements don't allow for GMO so that helps to avoid them to a degree but there are no regulations on what one can label as "natural".

Personally I don't think we'll see forced labeling on a national level anytime soon. There are far too many former agribusiness execs currently holding high positions in the USDA.

 

Crops were genetically modified to produce a toxin (BT) to resist disease and kill pests. It also supports monoculture farming so the same crops can be planted year after year on the same fields. This practice is not sustainable and it depletes vital nutrients in the soil and eventually in the crop itself. Now pests are developing genetic mutations to resist this toxin (something the biotech engineers and scientists did not account for), and as the pest populations adapt, Monsanto will develop stronger pesticides to eradicate them or introduce a new genetic mutation to combat their resistance. Where does it end? When we eat these plant foods, whether in the form of fructose, or beef (corn fed cattle), we are ingesting the toxin.

Anyone hear about the colony collapse and mite infestations affecting our honey bee populations? This has been occurring nearly as long at GMOs have been around. Coincidence?

 

Re: Genetic Changes to Food May Get Uniform Labeling

"Instead of quelling the demand for labeling, the defeat of the California measure (Prop 37) has spawned a ballot initiative in Washington State and legislative proposals in Connecticut, Vermont, New Mexico and Missouri, and a swelling consumer boycott of some organic or “natural” brands owned by major food companies."

Executives from PepsiCo, ConAgra and about 20 other major food companies, as well as Wal-Mart and (advocacy groups that favor labeling,) attended a meeting in January in Washington convened by the Meridian Institute, which organizes discussions of major issues. The inclusion of Wal-Mart has buoyed hopes among labeling advocates that the big food companies will shift away from tactics like those used to defeat Proposition 37 in California last fall, when corporations spent more than $40 million to oppose the labeling of genetically modified foods

The big food companies found themselves in an uncomfortable position after Prop. 37, and they’re talking among themselves about alternatives to merely replaying that fight over and over again..."

They spent a lot of money, got a lot of bad press that propelled the issue into the national debate and alienated some of their customer base, as well as raising issues with some trading partners,” said Mr. Benbrook, who does work on sustainable agriculture.

Impending F.D.A. approval of a genetically modified salmon and the Agriculture Department’s consideration of genetically engineered apples have further intensified the debate.

“We’re at a point where, this summer, families could be sitting at their tables and wondering whether the salmon and sweet corn they’re about to eat has been genetically modified,” said Trudy Bialic, director of public affairs at PCC Natural Markets in Seattle. “The fish has really accelerated concerns.”

“The F.D.A. is not only employing 20-year-old, and we think obsolete, standards for materiality, but there is a general tendency on the part of the F.D.A. to be resistant to change,” he said. “With an issue as polarized and politicized as this one, it’s going to take a broad-based coalition to crack through that barrier.”

Mr. Benbrook and consumer advocates say the federal agencies responsible for things like labeling have relied on research financed by companies that make genetically modified seeds.

Read more here http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/01/business/food-companies-meet-to-weigh-federal-label-for-gene-engineered-ingredients.html?src=recg