Clarified: How is genetically modified food labeled?
September 21st, 2010
04:00 PM ET
Share this on:

In cooking, the process of clarification entails straining out extraneous muck from liquids so that they might be pure, clear and ideal for consumption. With this series on food terminology we're attempting to do the same.

If you pay attention to food labels, you might have to read between the lines when it comes to genetically engineered ingredients.

When Eatocracy polled readers yesterday if they would eat genetically modified salmon, approximately 45.1 percent of respondents answered: “not on your life.”

The irony of the results is that, according to the Center for Food Safety, it has been estimated that 70 to 75 percent of processed foods in supermarkets contain genetically engineered ingredients - they just aren’t required by the Food and Drug Administration to be labeled as such.

The “to label or not to label” debate took to the FDA’s public hearing stage about GMO salmon on Tuesday. The hearing offered the general public an opportunity to comment on the food labeling policies for AquAdvantage® Salmon, should the fish be approved for human consumption.

The big question remains: will consumers know if that salmon burger is genetically modified or not?

If the old policy FDA stands, in two words: you won’t.

Since genetically modified food was introduced to the marketplace in May 29, 1992, the FDA has not required specific GMO labeling.

In its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," the FDA said foods developed using recombinant DNA (or rDNA) techniques would not be required to have special labeling to reveal that fact to consumers.

The FDA reasons: "the agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.”

The only two exceptions to the 1992 labeling rule are: if the common name no longer applies to the new, modified food, or if an allergen issue exists.

For example, if a peanut protein is introduced into a tomato and there is research that verifies the introduced protein would cause an allergic reaction to those with a peanut allergy, the FDA ruled a label would be required - "even if its basic taste and texture remained unchanged.”

Still, opponents of GMO salmon like Wenonah Hauter, the executive director of Food and Water Watch, say the labeling discussion is premature - especially since the salmon hasn’t been approved.

“In light of the flimsy science debated in yesterday’s FDA hearing on genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the labeling discussion today is wholly inappropriate.”

Posted by:
Filed under: Bite • Clarified • Culture • FDA • Food Politics • GMO • Labels • News

soundoff (69 Responses)
  1. JGN

    As for 'Scientist' who states that scientists engineer 'drugs that make us healthy', HA!! What an absurd statement. We have never been such an unhealthy country as now, with pre-diabetics and pre-high blood pressure 'patients' being shoved onto those drugs before needed and before they have the chance to redirect their lives and correct their diets naturally, all in the name of $$. We have overused and abused antibiotics and cortico-steroid drugs to the point where they are simply ineffective and we must use stronger and stronger doses to get any results all with extremely deleterious effects on our bodies. The rising incidence of nearly untreatable skin conditions, organ deterioration, and many other life threatening conditions can be traced directly to the overuse of prescription drugs. All the scientists in this country are either funded by drug companies or the military, so if I were you I would NOT trust their intentions towards your health!

    January 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm |
  2. JGN

    We don't know enough about the long term effects of GMOs, whether on the environment or on our own bodies. FDA is notorious for either 'missing' negative impacts especially on drugs for many years, or for railroading through new ideas without bothering to fully understand them. This planet is in enough trouble without introducing crops and animals which have the potential for disasterous side effects.

    January 31, 2013 at 12:12 pm |
  3. picky eater and proud of it

    What is the problem with GE foods? I understand wanting them to be labeled, but not wanting them on the market alltogether is outrageous! If you have a medical problem with something inside of GE foods, then don't eat it. Other people might not have any health problems with it, so it's perfectly fine for them to eat it.

    In response to NonGMO Talk, there are some consumer benefits of GE foods. Health benefits. If there is a recurring disease inside a type of food that we eat, scientists can tamper with it to make it healthier. They can add a gene from something else into it's system that prevents that disease. This makes the consumer who eats it just a little healthier. Sickness is not welcome in anyone, consumer or not, and GE foods can prevent that one bout of disease that hurts so much.

    Now here is a counter argument to everything I have just ranted about...

    As for those people avoiding GE foods, your reasons are mostly understandable. We all have worries about new products and how they will effect us. We have health problems to think about, and we have the right to have a choice as consumers about what we want to eat and what we don't. It's ok not to want to eat something if you have a good reason.
    Anonymous Pseudonymous

    November 21, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
  4. NonGMOTalk

    Join Us to Stop GE Salmon!

    Ask supermarket and food company CEOs to help us stop GE salmon!

    The FDA is trying to fast track the approval of dangerous genetically engineered (GE) salmon. Since the FDA has a history of catering to business interests over food safety, let’s invite the food industry to throw its weight on this urgent issue. Sign the petition below to create a consumer/business partnership to protect our health and the environment.
    Dear Food Industry CEO,

    With the GE salmon issue accelerating public concern about GMOs, now is the time to become a non-GMO consumer champion.

    Although the FDA is ignoring the desires of 91% of us Americans who don’t want genetically engineered (GE) animals, please don’t do the same. Instead, join us by telling the FDA, the US Congress, and the Obama Administration not to approve GE salmon.

    We know from even the poor quality studies submitted to the FDA that GE salmon varieties may have more allergens, require more antibiotics, and contain elevated levels of the cancer-promoting hormone IGF-1. And accidental release of these Frankenfish may endanger the existence of wild salmon.

    Opposing GE fish also makes good business sense. “GMO-Free” has been one of the fastest growing Health & Wellness claims for the past two years (Nielsen). Supermarket News predicted that 2010 would see an unprecedented upsurge in consumer concern about genetically modified organisms (GMOs), hinting that they might join the ranks of transfats, carbs, and other food industry “culprits.”

    The medical community has started to mobilize. In 2009, for example, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called on all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to all patients, citing a long list of related disorders. The American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, and others condemned the use of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (specifically denouncing the risks of increased IGF-1—the same hormone that’s likely increased in GE Salmon.)

    Since GMOs offer no consumer benefits, even a small percentage of shoppers avoiding GM brands could create a tipping point. Already, consumer rejection pushed GMOs out of Europe and is forcing GE bovine growth hormone out of the US.

    Please publicly announce that if GE salmon is approved, you will not carry it and that you will label your salmon as “non-GMO.”

    September 29, 2010 at 7:07 pm |
  5. arthur toussaint

    seen your show on modified foods. what about the seeds that the food come from. you need to take a look at Seeds of Destruction by F. William Engdahl. Boy this book will scare the Hell out of you . Would love to see you do a segement on this book. I think it would get america to thinking about the whole food chain!!!

    September 28, 2010 at 11:04 pm |
  6. Dahlias

    >:{ There will be no damn modified food on MY plate. I HATE farmed fish so of course I will also Hate something bred from a lab. It's why I'm on this organic kick, can't stomach the crap put into the foods now, ever read an ingrediants list? How sad is that?

    September 24, 2010 at 5:38 pm |
  7. publius enigma

    If Im reading between the lines correctly a big difference between genetically engineered salmon and previously engineered foods is that the salmon will be sterile. That means that instead of making a few good salmon and breeding more from that stock, every new salmon has to go through the process. Do you really trust that to be done by minimum wage workers?

    September 22, 2010 at 3:55 pm |
    • Mac

      The majority of the fish used in farms will be sterile from fertile breeders at the supply laboratory. By manipulating the water temperature they can make about 97% of them sterile. The other three percent are not and are not easy to sort out. There is no provision in the proposal to sort them out. So about 3% of the escapees will be fertile. Also there is a chance of the fertile genetically engineered breeding fish escaping to the environment. The food quality argument distracts from the fact that whole thing is an ecological bad idea.

      September 22, 2010 at 5:07 pm |
  8. Food for Thought


    September 22, 2010 at 3:26 pm |
  9. El Kababa

    I don't know if this fish is safe to eat, but I can guarantee that it will not be properly labeled as "GENETICALLY MODIFIED SALMON." It will be labeled as "FRESH CAUGHT WILD PACIFIC brand SALMON: From Mother Nature To You, With Love."

    September 22, 2010 at 2:06 pm |
  10. mark

    In reality even if it was labeled, most people wouldn't even read it anyways. There's very few people who know, I mean really KNOW, what they're eating on a daily basis. Does anyone even go to a restaurant and start questioning the quality of what they're ordering and how it was handled? Doubt it. People only start caring when others tell them to...

    September 22, 2010 at 1:17 pm |
  11. Mac

    These genetically modified things are intended for fish farms. Without them fish farms can be great if they only use unmodified already local species, are well away from waterways and use food from the land. Otherwise they are environmental hazards. Fish farms generally feed fish or foods made from fish! The amount of sea fish used for these foods will eventually out strip any quantity ever dreamed of being caught for human food-fish fishing. That will deprive larger fish including wild food fish of their prey. It will also starve whales, seals and other marine mammals. A lot of the funding for environmental attacks on small fishing boats come from investors in the fish farm business attempting to eliminate family fishing and leave the market to them. That does not mean that the, generally honest, environmentalists necessarily understand this motive. However when the corporate farms finally control the market there will be few choices of what kind of fish for you eat or debate here. Other patented foods may follow similar courses.

    September 22, 2010 at 12:35 pm |
  12. El Kababa

    What we have learned from Exxon, Enron, HP, ADM, BP, and other global corporations is that unless a saintly federal regulator is holding a gun to the head of the CEO, every corporation will lie, cheat, steal, cook the books, bribe legislators, lie to inspectors, bribe inspectors, lie to consumers, lie to investors, buy pretty girls for influential friends, bribe the county commissioner for a zoning variance, deliver cheap asphalt when high quality asphalt was called for in the contract, and never, never, never, never tell the truth about anything to any audience. They deliver one message to consumers, another to investors, another to government, another to competitors, and another to suppliers.
    We have to forget that Libertarian/Ayn Rand/Gary Cooper romantic vision of the brilliant entrepreneur. It does not describe what we see happening in front of our eyes. We are so accustomed to corporate lying that we think it is unremarkable when the corporation always downplays problems. It never just tells the damn simple truth. They say the leak is only 5,000 gallons, knowing it is much more, but hoping to cover up the difference. They say there is no defect in the product, but finally they admit that a number of people have been killed and very reluctantly they order a recall. The makers of Motrin are in the headlines today because they tried to conceal product defects. Corporations admit the truth only when they are unable to cover up the reality.
    So my questions to those who defend the introduction of frankensalmon are these. What test results were suppressed? What test animals were secretly destroyed? What "independent" scientists were chosen to test the product because of their willingness to produce desirable results? What inspectors were bribed? I don't know and we'll never know. All I know is this: no corporation can be trusted in any situation for any task. I oppose the introduction of new technology until we bring technology under control. I love science and I admire scientists. I dislike global corporations and I am in complete contempt of their leadership.
    Corporate science is to science as a whorehouse is to an art museum.

    September 22, 2010 at 12:09 pm |
  13. Evil Grin

    I think it should be labeled. And not so I can just not buy the gen mod products. I'd like to see what I'm buying and make an informed decision. I'd also like to see how the prices correlate to the product. I want to see if I'm really getting value from the gen mod food, and I want to be able to make my decisions as a consumer based on what I see.

    September 22, 2010 at 10:54 am |
  14. Edmund

    I think labeling a product as a GMO should be required in this country. I don't want the gov't or agribusiness deciding for me, what I should eat. In the EU labeling GMO's is required. As usual, the FDA and Big Agribusiness are in collusion...

    September 22, 2010 at 10:30 am |
  15. qmuser

    Get over it. It's been many years since we could feed the worlds human population without agrochemicals and genetically modified species. If you don't like it, find a way to reduce the worlds population by a few billion people before you go getting on your high horse about how we feed them.

    September 22, 2010 at 9:52 am |
  16. Watch this

    There is a documentary I saw on Hulu a while back called "The Future of Food" which all of you should watch. It talks about everything from Monsanto to the way our government is screwing us by not mandating GMO products to be labeled as they are in Europe. I guess the government thinks it is better to be in bed with big corporations than taking care of their constituents.

    September 22, 2010 at 9:45 am |
  17. Oliver

    If genetically altered food is confidently risk free and such a great step forward in helping to provide good nutrition for millions of people who would otherwise go hungry, ...and not a primarily profit driven scheme to fool nature into helping provide BMW's for the kids to get lost in or the warm tingling sensation caused by wealth's rush through every investor's veins, then wanting to label these miracles would be something Agribusinesses would be fighting for space to do.

    September 22, 2010 at 7:46 am |
  18. LK

    Also, this is the repercussion for people continually breeding our population into the further billions. You want cheap food, and to have a bunch of kids? Here's the price you pay. If you don't like it, pay the extra money for organic food, which BTW is NOT allowed to be GMO in the US.

    September 21, 2010 at 9:32 pm |
    • Ryan

      Or just stop eating beef, and save billions of tons of corn, grain, water and fuel. Food isn't cheap, the government makes farmers grow crops at below cost, so the beef and pork industries have cheap feed, which taxpayers eventually foot the bill for. It also costs billions in healthcare on the people who eat this processed garbage and get all the myriad health problems associated with obesity, diabetes, digestion problems, cancers, heart disease, food borne illnesses, high blood pressure etc etc etc.

      September 21, 2010 at 9:38 pm |
      • Mac

        Sorry, I do not understand. If the "the government makes farmers grow crops at below cost" how do they make a living?

        September 22, 2010 at 3:04 am |
  19. LK

    This is not a big deal. Get over it. If GMO food does not mutate you or kill you, something else will.

    September 21, 2010 at 9:21 pm |
    • Ryan

      You should educate yourself before you form opinions, or at least before you make assertions. Corporations OWN these crops, you cannot get your own seed from your crops, they are trademarking the basics of life. In less than 20 years Monsanto has basically become the owner of all the soybeans in America, not to mention corn and all sorts of other crops. If some guys Monsanto crops contaminate your field, Monsanto will sue you and win for violating their patents and ownership of all the crops.

      September 21, 2010 at 9:33 pm |
  20. N. Ruth

    If you buy food that is labeled "organic", does that mean that it is not genetically modified? I have been drinking soymilk labeled "organic", but I would not buy it if I believed it to be modified.

    How do we know? Sometimes I ask the salesclerks at stores, but do not necessarily trust them to know either.

    September 21, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
    • Ryan

      I don't think it's allowed by the USDA, but who knows anymore. I know organic farmers are worried about the genetically engineered alfalfa that was illegally approved by the FDA because it would contaminate organic growers crop and stocks through wind and pollination, and we would have another Monstanto soybean disaster. If it's organic it shouldn't contain GMO's, but this is America and they regulatory bodies are bought by the corporations. Unfortunately we don't have European standards.

      September 21, 2010 at 9:28 pm |
    • sunnysky1

      To be certified organic, a product must be GMO free. To the best of my knowledge, organic certification is handled with a high degree of integrity. The label should state which organization certified the product or you could go to the company website for more information on their standards.

      September 24, 2010 at 1:32 pm |
  21. Knowledge is Power

    The public is often lied to by big business and government agencies. They don't want truthful labeling because they don't want the public to avoid buying these food items. And that's the truth.

    September 21, 2010 at 9:04 pm |
  22. Knowledge is Power

    It should be labeled so people can make their own decision whether to buy or not. The truth of food sources or ingredients should never be hidden. That is close to criminal.

    September 21, 2010 at 9:02 pm |
  23. grgr

    Information on the source is useful for everyone who may want to know. There is no need to hide it. In the recent salmonila egg outbreak, information on the origin factories led to understanding problem and recall of potentially harmful product. In that recall, consumers were made aware of the particular markings on the package to alert them of origin problems. How people may use information day-to-day is up to their own view of the world. In the event of a substantiated problem, clear and immediate information is critical.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:50 pm |
  24. Keith1952

    It should be labeled. The government is not your friend; they are just as susceptible to graft and corruption as any one. We would never know if there was something wrong. That is how it works. There are times when a hapless journalist stumbles onto some story and actually gets the truth out but it is the exception not the rule.

    The government wouldn't let us label produce “organic” at first. Then the large mega farms got the government to change many of the rules so that they qualified as organic. Then it was just fine to label produce organic.

    Monsanto has stolen the lives and futures of farmers all over America and Canada. No fault of the farmers that pollen contaminated their crops then the farmers were sued and lost their livelihoods.

    There is no one to protect us from the corporate interest. All our Congressmen and Senators have been bought and sold by them so that the only people in America that have no voice in Washington are the American people. Send the Scoundrels and Thieves home, they all qualify, even yours.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:32 pm |
    • Ryan

      You know it. It's amazing how ignorant most of the people are about this. Just look at people's grocery carts the next time you're shopping, it's appalling.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:39 pm |
  25. D Chen

    Whether it's safe or not is irrelevant to labeling. It can be argued artificial flavors are also safe and therefore any artificially flavored orange drink doesn't need to specify that fact. Let the people decide for themselves. Since when are decisions centralized?

    What's even worse is the fact that they either sue for or outright ban labeling products that are free of GMOs as such. This is just sickening.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:25 pm |
  26. College Guy

    wow that supermarket has a larger variety of milk than any i have ever been. where was the photo taken?

    September 21, 2010 at 8:15 pm |
    • Ryan

      They just have all the organics, rice, soy and I think almond milks next to the regular milk, our grocer has them all split up but if they put it all in one section it would look like that.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:55 pm |
  27. College Guy

    Amy's Organic Kitchen: no GMO's EVER!!!!

    September 21, 2010 at 8:14 pm |
  28. College Guy

    we need to pay our senators and congressmen more (same as president for a long serving congressman) so they stop getting bribed by monsanto. Also, Clarence Thomas= Monsato. We need to make it illegal to copyright nature.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:14 pm |
    • El Kababa

      Most men would do anything for a hundred million dollars.

      September 22, 2010 at 12:08 pm |
  29. College Guy

    Congress should force FDA to label all foods if there is something noteworthy about them.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:09 pm |
  30. philip

    The end result of GMO is nothing different than the end result of traditional methods such as crossbreeding to get a better desired product. Except that it is cheaper, and faster. GMO means more food for the planet using less resources and less pesticides. People are opposing it based on fear of the unknown while thinking they "know" the truth because they took a semester of BIO 101 in college.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:09 pm |
    • azrael

      Phil there is a big difference between traditional methods versus the methods being used by companies such as Monsato.... The methods they employ are highly unnatural for instance genes from a type of beetle are taken and spliced into a tomato to make them more resistant to frost damage..... or in the case of old "frankin fish" not only do they splice in the genes of a Pacific salmon species which Atlantic Salmon can't even breed with naturally but also combine genes from a completely unrelated species of fish.....

      September 21, 2010 at 8:24 pm |
      • aleksey

        But what about those monsters that spliced a mammalian protein gene into bacteria to give us infinite supplies of that VILE PENICILLIN.

        You freaking nut jobs really have nothing legitimate to say about the effects of GMOs because you don't even have the slightest grasp of molecular biology, especially in the case of modified genes. Each of these new GMOs undergo extensive allergen testing, from cell based to animal bases tests.

        September 21, 2010 at 8:45 pm |
    • sunnysky1


      You don't even need a semester of BIO101 to be an expert because this is about food, not science. The American people are consumers that should have access to the same real foods that they have been eating for the last 250 years. When these foods are replaced by products that we didn't ask for and, in most cases, don't want, people have the right to reject them for any reason.

      September 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm |
  31. Catherine

    I'd like it to be labeled and then I will buy it specifically. Many GMOs lead to lower use of pesticides and other chemicals. It's a safe technology that has great benefits.

    September 21, 2010 at 8:04 pm |
    • azrael

      sounds like someone works for Monsanto

      September 21, 2010 at 8:05 pm |
    • sunnysky1


      Biotech agriculture uses chemicals as much as, and sometimes more, than conventional agriculture. Genetically engineered plants are developed by pesticide companies like Monsanto so that they can sell more of these chemicals, not less. These companies make seeds/plants that create their own pesticides for certain insect pests but not for others so you still have to spray for other pests. Also, many insects have an uncanny ability to become resistant to pesticides so they have to use more and sometimes harsher chemicals- it is an environmentally destructive cycle. Also, many GM crops require twice as much water as conventional crops so you can forget the rhetoric about how they can save third world populations from starvation, since these countries already have drought issues.

      September 24, 2010 at 1:09 pm |
    • krystal

      actually that leads to superweeds developing as a result of the genetic modifying of the plant. and, that leads to a need for stronger pesticides

      May 28, 2011 at 11:32 pm |

    The FDA does little to really protect the public. After people die they recall food products or drugs. After people die. The least they could do is have truthful labeling so the public can decide for ourselves. But they don't care. They are paid off.

    September 21, 2010 at 7:55 pm |
    • GMO Pimps

      Who needs terrorists when we have American big business poisoning our water, air and food? The 9/11 attack did less damage than is being done to our ecosystems with government approval.

      September 21, 2010 at 7:58 pm |
  33. azrael

    Call me off base if you wish but anyone ever wonder why there's been a marked increase in various food related allergies.....

    September 21, 2010 at 7:54 pm |
    • philip

      Ok, youre off base. The leading theory is that because we live in such a clean environment devoid of many parasites, our immune system still wants to fight something. So it picks somethign innocuous like pollen or a food. Studies have shown the more parasites a population has the fewer allergies it has. For example, you won't find very many people with allergies in most of Africa.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:15 pm |
    • Esther

      You are not off base in the least. I've developed food allergies to corn and soy- thanks to GMO corn and soy. I'm disgusted that these foods were never labelled and it was so difficult for me to figure out the connection. Now that the FDA has questioned whether GMO salmon should be labelled they need to revisit the labelling laws for the foods that have already been modified. Those foods need to be labelled as well so that people can make informed choices in what they eat.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:33 pm |
  34. Baruch

    "it has been estimated that 70 to 75 percent of processed foods in supermarkets contain genetically engineered ingredients" And that is why I do not eat what passes for food in the supermarkets. I grow food, buy local, and if I have to buy non-local it is organic.

    September 21, 2010 at 7:40 pm |
    • Eastrick

      Do you realize you are kidding yourself? If you buy corn for a local farm market, you bought genetically modified corn.

      September 22, 2010 at 12:55 pm |
      • sue

        There is a difference between hybrid corn and GMO corn. Very different! Most of the GMO corn is used for processing and not eating whole. Corn for breads and animal feeds tastes pretty much like cardboard with a little sugar dabbled on it. GMO has the genetics spliced into it artificially. Hybrid corn is the same as a designer dog, poodle x saint Bernard. It's still a dog, nothing artificial.
        Glowing green cats, pigs and fish are carrying a jellyfish gene. No natural breeding there. I would however admit to wanting a glow in the dark pig for the coolness factor but it would be a pet. No eating. Jellyfish aren't on my menu.

        While a market farmer might be buying seed from a seedhouse owned by monsanto it's the big mechanized farms that are using the plants with genes spliced in. (monsanto has been buying up the small seed providers)

        Then when the wind blows and the frakenplant pollinates the small neighbor farm's heirlooms the seed becomes the intellectual property of Monsanto and they take it from the small farmer.

        September 22, 2010 at 3:39 pm |
      • sunnysky1

        At this time, there is no genetically modified sweet corn on the market. Most of the GM corn ends up in processed foods as high fructose corn syrup, corn oil etc. Also, much of the sugar on the market is now derived from genetically engineered sugar beets; if you want to avoid it, use only 100% cane sugar. Most Domino products are gmo free but you have to read the label. Buying organic is the best way to avoid GM food. A totally organic diet can be cost prohibitive to many of us but when the demand increases, they will produce more and prices will drop. Also, many people would be surprised at how much good food they can grow in a small space, even a townehome garden, to keep the grocery bill down. Consumers need to take control of their food choices; if we can't rely on the FDA to protect the food supply, then we need to just stop buying these products. When the biotech companies start losing money, they will find some other way to earn a living.

        September 24, 2010 at 12:55 pm |
  35. Kirk Lazarus

    It should be labeled GMO or not, but as long as Monsanto is running the FDA it wont be...

    September 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm |
  36. Sean Baker

    Oh your own food is expensive..unless you eat reasonable portions, and don't waste grow your own!
    But then I ask myself..expensive compared to life threatening illness and dependency on 'modern' pharmaceutical cures?
    I also distill my own water..the money saved on bottled stuff can help offset your organic purchases! Especially if you give up soda, which I strongly suggest..I enjoyed it in the days..but don't miss there..

    September 21, 2010 at 5:20 pm |
  37. Sean Baker

    I bought some non-GMO seeds, found some local composted manure on craigslist, and planted open pollinated heirloom veggie varieties in raised beds. Had soil tested by UMass. First time gardner, have successfully grown 70 tomato plants, several varieties of melon, potatoes, lettuce. Asparagus too..takes a few years to grow to size though..had plans for much more,,,as I was unemployed during my efforts,,ended up getting a job though..will plan better, do more next year..corn, squash, beans, peppers, kale, onions, maybe some more..DO IT! With companion planting I've had NO pest issues, no need to use any pesticides,

    As I said..FIRST time grower..and if I'd had help, could have done more!
    I've picked up a greenhouse kit..plan on trying some veggies over the winter, and starting plants early next season (In N.England)
    I strongly encourage everyone to try it..Even in a box in a sunny window...or porch..raised up without any need to bend is possible
    Just DO IT!!

    September 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
  38. Julie

    If it is genetically modified, it should state it... period. It should also VERY CLEARLY state on the packaging if any of the ingredients came from Monsanto's roundup ready seed or was planted in the same area as Monsanto seed, as it has already been proven that such seed is dangerous to human and evironmental health.... as well as the health of the farmers.

    As for the FDA.... you didn't really think that B.S. reason above is the real reason did you?? The real reason have everything to do with GREED. Monsanto is very well aware that people don't want to endanger their health by eating their crops and if it was listed on the packaging, those crops wouldn't be worth diddly... and neither would their stock price. It is VERY well known that Monsanto has the FDA firmly in their pocket.

    September 21, 2010 at 5:16 pm |
    • Frankie

      I totally agree with Julie..They are changing our food and it is insane. Whether we can tell a difference in the taste or not, they are messing with the way it was created to nourish our body. MONSANTO needs to be stopped and stopped NOW.

      September 21, 2010 at 7:41 pm |
      • Scientist

        here's what i don't get. scientists engineer chemicals (drugs) that make us healthy. why not with food? Now i'm not saying let the flood gates open, but why not explore the possibilities. if there's a problem, it's dangerous, than yes, pull it. however with new drugs, there are test groups and retesting. same thing with GMO food. If it's proven to be safe, why worry? it's no different than the "natural" process of evolution where cross-breeding and such produces results. GMO is just "faster"

        September 21, 2010 at 8:00 pm |
      • Ryan

        Real food is fine as it is, actually the food-like products (processed foods) developed by scientists are one of the major reasons for the ill health in the U.S.. Also, "drugs" do not make us healthier in general, they are pushed down our throats for any reason that will sell a prescription and generally to alleviate symptoms brought on by people's poor living and eating habits. Doing this to food is not similar at all to animal husbandry or selectively breeding plants through natural processes, since that is the argument so many like to throw out there.

        If you want to eat this garbage, or god forbid, feed it to your kids, that's your right I suppose. But they better not try slipping this stuff into what I buy. I've eliminated almost all processed foods from our house and make most things from scratch, no beef, no pork, just organic chicken and lamb with wild seafood and plants.

        If you're worried about feeding the starving babies in Africa, then stop eating beef, that will save billions of tons of corn and grain and water and oil and seafood effected by the manure and antibiotic runoff.

        September 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm |
      • Nima

        IN REPLY TO SCIENTIST: it's not about why we are against exploring science. you as a scientist can eat, drink and poo
        GMO all day long. We have no issues with that. The problem is when you feed others without their knowledge GMO
        food. This should be against the law. People have a right to know, not maytter what FDA thinks or says.

        September 21, 2010 at 8:40 pm |
    • Hayes


      September 21, 2010 at 8:33 pm |
      • JamieinMN

        Google is your friend...idiot.

        September 21, 2010 at 8:54 pm |
    • Esther

      I agree. These foods should never have gone to the market without being labelled. Worse yet, they should not have been put into pretty much all processed and fast foods without anyone knowing it. Now we are seeing the damage- food allergies, epic obesity, digestive diseases, etc. It's time they did the right thing and labelled these foods at the very least for people like me, whose bodies obviously cannot tolerate them.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:35 pm |
    • Paul Stone

      I totally agree I want to know what I am eating all foods should be labeled like they are in europe. Monsantos seeds of death are poison to the Earth. dont buy anthing with corn or soy as they are GMO. Thank you CNN for these articles on your website it's about time you had news that is worthwhile reading.

      September 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm |
    • goferris

      Julie, you have it right. People–if you actually do your research....and there is much out there from MANY organizations that are TRUSTED and PROVEN organizations–you will realize that Julie's statements are a summary of the real truth. Peel back the layers and look–you will be shocked. It will change your life. Literally.

      September 22, 2010 at 8:09 am |
| Part of