A “Genetically Altered” Nightmare for American Consumers!

On January 2, General Mills (GIS) announced that it would stop using any genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in its most popular brand, Cheerios.
The change has been heralded as a major victory by anti-GMO and food activist groups, such as Food Democracy Now and GMO Free USA. But it left me wondering: What exactly have they “won,” and ultimately, what are they fighting for?
It’s easy to see why activists are so thrilled with General Mills’ decision. Cheerios is one of the most ubiquitous brands in America. Better yet, the move to eliminate GMOs from the breakfast cereal seems to imply that General Mills has the consumer’s best interest at heart.
Makes you feel all fuzzy inside, doesn’t it?
But even a cursory look at statements from General Mills’ spokesman, Tom Forsythe, quickly dispels that heartwarming illusion…
“It’s not much of a change at all,” Tom wrote in a posting on the company website.
And he’s right – it’s not.
You see, Cheerios are made of oats, and there are no genetically modified oats. All General Mills has done is use different corn starch (now made from non-GMO corn) and different sugar (non-GMO pure cane sugar).
Tom added: “It’s not about safety. Biotech seeds, also known as genetically modified seeds, have been approved by global food safety agencies and widely used by farmers in global food crops for almost 20 years.”
All true. Genetically modified seeds are FDA approved and have been in use for decades. In fact, 90% of commodity crops in America (including soy beans, corn and sugar beets) are grown from genetically modified seeds, according to National Geographic.
So why did General Mills feel the need to acquiesce?
“We did it because we think consumers might embrace it,” says Mr. Forsythe.
Or, more accurately, because the company thought its bottom line might suffer if it didn’t make the change. Meanwhile, General Mills has no plans to remove GMOs from any other line of cereal because it would be “difficult, if not impossible,” according to a recent statement from the company.
The Biggest Loser
So let’s tally up the points here. Non-GMO advocates have scored a major win because a national brand has ostensibly turned its back on biotech seeds. And General Mills has protected its bottom line while making nothing more than trivial changes.
That leaves us with the loser, which in this case is science. Oh, and the nearly 900 million people around the world suffering from undernourishment (according to the World Hunger Education Service).
You see, the shortsighted and ignorant push to eliminate GMOs from food does come with a cost. It casts an ominous shadow on a technology that doesn’t deserve quite so much vitriol, and it hampers progress toward stemming third-world hunger.
It’s unfortunate that all of the recent press about GMOs ignores their numerous benefits. According to UC Santa Cruz, these benefits include greatly increased crop yields, foods with more complete nutritional value, foods with a longer shelf life for easier shipping and, ultimately, the promise of more sustainable agriculture worldwide.
Food activists will be quick to point out that there are concerns over testing (or a lack thereof). Do we really know that GMOs produce food that’s safe for consumption? At this point, the majority of the research (including a majority of independent critical reviews) says that GMOs are harmless.
In fact, Jon Entine, a Forbes contributor, writes that, “Every major scientific body and regulatory agency in the world has reviewed the research about GMOs and openly declared crop biotechnology and the foods currently available for sale to be safe.”
It’s that kind of information that gives the anti-GMO movement the same self-righteous stink as, say, the Occupy Wall Street movement (body odor not withstanding).
Considering we live in a world where a child dies every two seconds from hunger, should anyone really be concerned about the GMO corn starch in his or her Cheerios? As Always The Plain Truth!