General Discussion

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts) Fri Mar 18, 2016, 07:31 PM Mar 2016

General Mills to start using GMO labeling nationwide, Doubles Organic crops

With Vermont's labeling law looming, the company said it needed to find a cost-effective solution.
By Mike Hughlett and Jim Spencer, Star Tribune March 18, 2016

General Mills will begin labeling products nationwide that contain genetically modified ingredients after the failure of Congress to reach a national labeling law, a “watershed” development, according to one consumer group.

The Golden Valley-based company said Friday that since it will be forced by July 1 to begin labeling for GMOs in Vermont — the result of a state law there — it will extend GMO labeling nationwide.

“We can’t label our products for only one state without significantly driving up costs for our consumers, and we simply won’t do that,” Jeff Harmening, head of General Mills’ U.S. retail operations said in a post on a company blog Friday. “The result: Consumers all over the country will soon begin seeing words legislated by the state of Vermont on the labels of many of their favorite General Mills food products.”

Labeling for genetically modified ingredients has been a contentious topic the past few years. The food industry claims that such labels are unnecessary because GMOs were long ago approved by federal food safety regulators. Consumer groups have pushed for labeling, saying consumers have a right to know what’s in their food.

“By any measure today’s development is a watershed moment in the fight for more transparency,” said Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group. “I applaud General Mills..snp
Read More: http://www.startribune.com/general-mills-to-start-using-gmo-labeling-nationwide/372580101/

General Mills: Why we’re doubling our organic acres

Mar 09, 2016 • By Grant Moos

General Mills will accelerate its commitment to more than double the organic acreage from which we source our ingredients for brands like Cascadian Farm, Annie’s and Muir Glen.

In 2015, we sourced from 120,000 organic acres, and we expect to be sourcing from 250,000 acres by 2019.

Consumer interest in organic is growing, which means we will need more organic ingredients to make our products.

Since 2009, General Mills has increased the organic acreage it supports by 120 percent and is now among the top five organic ingredient purchasers – and the second largest buyer of organic fruits and vegetables in the North American packaged food sector...snip
http://www.blog.generalmills.com/2016/03/why-were-doubling-our-organic-acres/

VICTORY is sweet. Thanks General Mills! Now for the rest...

Do You Have a Right to Know What is in Your Food?
http://americanintelligencereport.com/general-mills-to-start-labeling-gmos-nationwide-doubles-organics

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

General Mills to start using GMO labeling nationwide, Doubles Organic crops (Original Post) nationalize the fed Mar 2016 OP

Stabenow managed to stop Pat Roberts' bill Ilsa Mar 2016 #1

This will impact the commercial food industry Oak3Tree Mar 2016 #2

"Maybe it will help to put Monsanto out of business" cpwm17 Mar 2016 #4

This message was self-deleted by its author Oak3Tree Mar 2016 #5

GMO's haven't been shown to pose any health risk cpwm17 Mar 2016 #7

No scientific consensus on that at all AxionExcel Mar 2016 #8

In your own words: cpwm17 Mar 2016 #13

This message was self-deleted by its author Oak3Tree Mar 2016 #12

You have a very narrow and strange view of what constitutes a Democrat. cpwm17 Mar 2016 #15

Monsanto made a lot of bitter enemies with it's godforsaken ATTACK AG AxionExcel Mar 2016 #6

Seeds have been patented and monopolized since the 1970 Green Revolution introduced hybrid seeds NickB79 Mar 2016 #9

But Monsanto has an ugly fetish for suing farmers who don't want their seed AxionExcel Mar 2016 #11

Monsanto supplies the organic, non-GM seed for the farms General Mills is sourcing from NickB79 Mar 2016 #10

A snappy salute for the General AxionExcel Mar 2016 #3

I guess they need some woo-woo PR to make up for things like laying off 500 in Chicago tritsofme Mar 2016 #14

Ilsa

(61,696 posts)

1. Stabenow managed to stop Pat Roberts' bill

Reply to nationalize the fed (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:11 PM

Mar 2016

Which stripped states of authority to legislate how products were labelled. I'm thankful to Vermont to tackling this.

Oak3Tree

(75 posts)

2. This will impact the commercial food industry

Reply to nationalize the fed (Original post)

Fri Mar 18, 2016, 10:43 PM

Mar 2016

General Mills is a giant in food. This is very good news.
It will influence and affect other food industry's.

Maybe it will help to put Monsanto out of business.

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)

4. "Maybe it will help to put Monsanto out of business"

Reply to Oak3Tree (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 08:10 AM

Mar 2016

Last edited Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:39 PM - Edit history (1)

And that is the goal of this GMO labeling nonsense: to harm the businesses of those companies that are using a perfectly good technology that can greatly benefit mankind.

Not all of us out here have money to burn on "organic" foods. It is such a waste of perfectly good money.

Response to cpwm17 (Reply #4)

Oak3Tree This message was self-deleted by its author.

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)

7. GMO's haven't been shown to pose any health risk

Reply to Oak3Tree (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:39 AM

Mar 2016

and there is no compelling reason to believe that they should. Other products produced by companies, such as Monsanto, need to be heavily regulated for health and safety, like anything anything else.

At first these folks bought into the negative hype concerning GMO's. They were properly criticized for an anti-GMO video they couldn't defend:

AxionExcel

(755 posts)

8. No scientific consensus on that at all

Reply to cpwm17 (Reply #7)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:42 AM

Mar 2016

The GMO-Chem Corps like to keep claiming so, but their hugely funded propaganda is total BS.

Read all about it:
http://www.ensser.org/media/0115/

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)

13. In your own words:

Reply to AxionExcel (Reply #8)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 03:35 PM

Mar 2016

what is it about GMO's that make that method of genetic modification any more dangerous than any other method or process of genetic change?

Response to cpwm17 (Reply #7)

Oak3Tree This message was self-deleted by its author.

cpwm17

(3,829 posts)

15. You have a very narrow and strange view of what constitutes a Democrat.

Reply to Oak3Tree (Reply #12)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:43 PM

Mar 2016

Generally being pro-science is considered an important part of being a Democrat - along with supporting a fair economic system, human rights, the environment, health care, and peace; and opposing the corruption and war-mongering that dominates Washington DC.

Here's the scientific consensus:

The American Association for the Advancement of Science:
http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

There are several current efforts to require labeling of foods containing products derived from genetically modified crop plants, commonly known as GM crops or GMOs. These efforts are not driven by evidence that GM foods are actually dangerous. Indeed, the science is quite clear: crop improvement by the modern molecular techniques of biotechnology is safe. Rather, these initiatives are driven by a variety of factors, ranging from the persistent perception that such foods are somehow “unnatural” and potentially dangerous to the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm. Another misconception used as a rationale for labeling is that GM crops are untested

The US National Academy of Sciences:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/24/science/la-sci-gmo-food-safety-20121025

But among scientists, there is widespread agreement that such crops aren't dangerous. The plants, they say, are as safe as those generated for centuries by conventional breeding and, in the 20th century, by irradiating plant material, exposing it to chemical mutagens or fusing cells together to produce plants with higher grain yields, resistance to frost and other desirable properties. Now they want to insert other genes into plants to make them more nutritious, resistant to drought or able to capture nitrogen from the air so they require less fertilizer, among other useful traits.

"There's no mystery here," said UCLA plant geneticist Bob Goldberg. "When you put a gene into a plant ... it behaves exactly like any other gene."

Genetically engineered crops have been extensively studied. Hundreds of papers in academic journals have scrutinized data on the health and environmental impacts of the plants. So have several in-depth analyses by independent panels convened by the National Academy of Sciences.

The reports have broadly concluded that genetically modified plants are not only safe but in many respects friendlier to the environment than nonengineered crops grown via conventional farming methods.

The American Medical Association
http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-medical-association-opposes.html

During a conference in Chicago, AMA's House of Delegates also adopted a report reaffirming there is no evidence that the genetic modification process presents any unique safety issues and recognizing the potential benefits of the technology.

The council's decision to oppose labeling comes amid California's consideration of legislation that would require genetically modified foods sold in grocery stores to be labeled. Beyond its potential to create unnecessary alarm for consumers, a review by the independent state legislative analyst points out the measure would cost the state and its taxpayers millions of dollars to implement and to pay for lawsuits.

The AMA report is consistent with the findings of a majority of respected scientists, medical professionals and health experts. As the AMA has cited previously, a highly regarded 1987 National Academy of Sciences white paper states there is no evidence that genetically modified foods pose any health risks. The report also reaffirms the council's policy recommendation in a December 2000 report stating "there is no scientific justification for special labeling of genetically modified foods."

Additionally, there have been more than 300 independent medical studies on the health and safety of genetically modified foods. The World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association and many others have reached the same determination that foods made using GM ingredients are safe, and in fact are substantially equivalent to conventional alternatives. As a result, the FDA does not require labels on foods with genetically modified ingredients because it acknowledges they may mislead consumers into thinking there could be adverse health effects, which has no basis in scientific evidence.

AxionExcel

(755 posts)

6. Monsanto made a lot of bitter enemies with it's godforsaken ATTACK AG

Reply to cpwm17 (Reply #4)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:03 AM

Mar 2016

You know, suing neighboring farms for using their "patented seeds" after their GMO seeds wind drifted onto land where they were not wanted. That kind of corporate thuggery - and lots more besides including the wholesale invasion and infestation of human bodies with their toxic hebicides - set an ugly tone.

Not surprising that Thugs, Inc. get pushback.

As I see it, most Americans don't necessarily want to put Monsanto out of business, but they do want the corporation to finally start acting with at least a thimble-full of civic responsibility.

NickB79

(19,257 posts)

9. Seeds have been patented and monopolized since the 1970 Green Revolution introduced hybrid seeds

Reply to AxionExcel (Reply #6)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 10:58 AM

Mar 2016

Conventional hybrid seed is the fallback to GMO seed, not open-pollinated heirloom seed, simply due to the large jump in yield. And, you can't save and grow your own seed from hybrid crops even if you wanted to, because the genetics become unstable after the first year and you get a field with tall plants, short plants, ones that produce well, ones that produce almost nothing, etc.

If all GM crops disappeared tomorrow, farmers would still be buying all their seeds from massive ag companies like Monsanto, Syngenta and Cargill.

In fact, this is exactly what modern-day organic farms do as well: they use non-GM hybrid seed purchased ironically enough from companies like Monsanto!

AxionExcel

(755 posts)

11. But Monsanto has an ugly fetish for suing farmers who don't want their seed

Reply to NickB79 (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:33 AM

Mar 2016

So the hostility against the corp is their own freaking crappy karma.

http://www.fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2014/sep/6/monsanto_has_sued_farmers_16_years_never_lost_case

NickB79

(19,257 posts)

10. Monsanto supplies the organic, non-GM seed for the farms General Mills is sourcing from

Reply to Oak3Tree (Reply #2)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 11:00 AM

Mar 2016

http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/a-list-of-some-seed-companies-owned-by-monsanto-or-sell-monsanto

Wednesday, December 26th, 2012

As of 2005, Monsanto owns Seminis. It is estimated that Seminis controls 40 percent of the U.S. vegetable seed market and 20 percent of the world market—supplying the genetics for 55 percent of the lettuce on U.S. supermarket shelves, 75 percent of the tomatoes, and 85 percent of the peppers, with strong holdings in beans, cucumbers, squash, melons, broccoli, cabbage, spinach and peas. The company’s biggest revenue source comes from tomato and peppers seeds, followed by cucumbers and beans.

In large part, these numbers reflect usage of Seminis varieties within large industrial production geared towards supermarkets, but Seminis seeds are also widely used by regional conventional and organic farmers as well as market and home gardeners. Johnny’s, Territorial, Fedco, Nichol’s, Rupp, Osborne, Snow, and Stokes are among the dozens of commercial and garden seed catalogs that carry the more than 3,500 varieties that comprise Seminis’ offerings. This includes dozens of All-American Selections and an increasing number of varieties licensed to third parties for certified organic seed production.

AxionExcel

(755 posts)

3. A snappy salute for the General

Reply to nationalize the fed (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 06:28 AM

Mar 2016

People have a right to know what's in their food. After you fight your way through the well-funded swamps and cesspools of GMO-Chemical-Pharmaceutical propaganda and bum fodder, it comes down to that basic fact. The citizens of these United States have a right to know what is in their food.

The attempts to take that fundamental right away from the people, or to justify it's abrogation, stem from what can only be recognized (and then condemned) as a Republican-state-of-mind.

Thank you General.

tritsofme

(17,394 posts)

14. I guess they need some woo-woo PR to make up for things like laying off 500 in Chicago

Reply to nationalize the fed (Original post)

Sat Mar 19, 2016, 04:05 PM

Mar 2016

That's what I think about now when I hear General Mills. It's a shame. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-plant-closing-0717-biz-20150716-story.html

Reply to this discussion