Labeling war budding between organic companies and Non-GMO Project

|

I did a little experiment the other day. I stood outside a Whole Foods Market in Washington, D.C., with two cartons of large brown eggs. One carton had the words “Non-GMO Project Verified” on it, with a little orange butterfly. … The other carton had a different label; a green and white circle with the words “USDA Organic.” One other crucial difference: the organic carton cost 50 cents more.

I asked shoppers which carton they would buy.

“They both sound good,” says Anna Hansen, sounding indecisive. “If it’s non-GMO, great. If it’s USDA organic, great. I don’t know!” Then she pointed at the non-GMO carton. “This one’s a little cheaper, I guess I’d go with this one.”

“There’s a concern, for sure, that consumers are getting ripped off, or that they’re not getting what they think they’re getting,” says Dag Falck, the organic program manager at Nature’s Path Organic Foods.

The non-GMO label has always had its critics. Some people say it’s misleading because it implies that non-GMO foods are better for you. Scientists and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration have said repeatedly that this is not true.

Now, organic food companies are starting — cautiously — to voice concerns about the non-GMO label, too. They’re worried that shoppers have become so fixated on GMOs that they don’t realize how little it actually means, compared to organic.

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this blog/article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Read full, original post: Organic Food Fights Back Against ‘Non-GMO’ Rival

  • The Non-GMO Project Verified label only means that the product meets the non-GMO standards of the Non-GMO Project. The label makes no health claims whatsoever.

    • Alokin

      Their standards make health claims: they say Non-GMO is healthier. From the Non-GMO Project’s mission statement: “Preserving and building the non-GMO supply chain is a critical step of transitioning toward a safe, healthy food supply for future generations.” and the label represents the Non-GMO Project. It’s what the label represents that counts, not what it says.

    • WeGotta

      This is just another “front” opening up in the war by PR firms to get gmo approved to be organic.

      Look at the last few statements.
      “Now, organic food companies are starting — cautiously — to voice concerns about the non-GMO label, too.”

      Are they???

      “They’re worried that shoppers have become so fixated on GMOs that they don’t realize how little it actually means, compared to organic.”

      No, it actually means the opposite of organic.

      • Jason

        Why shouldn’t GM crops be able to be used in organic farming? They are organic, after all. They can be farmed in all the same ways that organic crops are currently farmed.
        Seems like the only reasons to exclude them are purely ideological.

        • WeGotta

          Why shouldn’t the quarterback of the patriots be able to be used on the Tampa Bay team? He is a buccaneer, after all. He can play in all the same ways that the other quarterbacks are currently playing.
          Seems like the only reasons to exclude him from playing for other teams are purely ideological.

          • Jason

            This doesn’t answer the question. Care to take another swing?

          • WeGotta

            If it’s too difficult for you to understand the concept of definitions then maybe you need an authority to tell you what to believe.

            “The use of genetic engineering, or genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is prohibited in organic products. This means an organic farmer can’t plant GMO seeds, an organic cow can’t eat GMO alfalfa or corn, and an organic soup producer can’t use any GMO ingredients.”

            https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2013/05/17/organic-101-can-gmos-be-used-organic-products

          • Jason

            You’re not really following along here. I already know that it is prohibited by regulation. That’s not the question. Do you need me to rephrase the question?

          • WeGotta

            Yes. Rephrase the question.

          • Jason

            I asked why shouldn’t organic farmers be able to use seeds produced through genetic engineering. I didn’t ask why can’t they.
            Again.. the seeds are organic. All the same organic pesticides and crop techniques work just as well on these seeds as any other seeds. And seeds produced by all other “unnatural” breeding techniques (polyploidy, mutagenisis, hybridization) are not excluded. So why should these?

          • WeGotta

            Oooooo, yay!
            Gettin philosophical.

            There really isn’t any reason they “shouldn’t” be organic.
            Same as there’s no reason you “shouldn’t” rob a bank or jump off a building.

            There’s no reason scientists “shouldn’t” stop screwing with DNA too.

            There’s no reason anyone “should” follow any rules at all unless they define some goal or “destination” for themselves.
            There’s no reason to pick any specific goals either.

            All that exists passes away. What we do or don’t do doesn’t matter in the slightest.

          • Jason

            But there are reasons you shouldn’t rob a bank or jump off a building. Bad things will happen. It sounds like you don’t really have any good reasons either. I expected not.

          • WeGotta

            There are reasons gmo isn’t organic too. Bad things will happen.

            It sounds like you don’t really have a point. I expected as much.

          • Jason

            There are reasons gmo isn’t organic too. Bad things will happen.

            Ok.. Now we’re getting somewhere! What are those things?

            While you’re at it, why do you rely on the “copy-cat” game so much? Is as if you’re a 6 year old sitting behind the computer. You can’t seem to formulate a point of your own, so you copy & paste someone else’s with a couple words changed. It doesn’t really seem to be helping clarify your argument at all. Remember (again) what we discussed regarding your communication difficulties??

          • WeGotta

            Some people who’ve invested their ego in how things are now will feel emotional stress when it changes, which will then manifest into the physical world as anger and fear resulting in more bad things happening, both to themselves and others with whom they interact.

          • Jason

            Some people who’ve invested their ego in how things are now will feel emotional stress when it changes, which will then manifest into the physical world as anger and fear resulting in more bad things happening, both to themselves and others with whom they interact.

            Is that it?? This seems pretty speculative. Where as jumping off a bridge will definitely result in hitting the surface underneath that bridge rather hard. C’mon… no need to make stuff up. You said bad things WILL happen. So what are they?

          • WeGotta

            That’s the root of all “bad” things. Egoic attachment to how things should be.

            The rest is just details. Was it the jump that caused the harm or the emotional stress from false attachments that made it seem like jumping off the bridge was the thing to do?
            Was it gravity’s fault?
            Was it the density of the ground?
            Was it pressure on the medulla from the intracranial hematoma?
            Was it the fact that there was no trauma center nearby?

            A person jumping off a bridge is also a “good” thing for others.

            If you want specifics then it would waste resources having to rewrite definitions.
            Why do you hate trees so much?

          • Jason

            I thought money was the root of all bad things?

            You just seem to be dancing around the question. All I asked was what bad things will happen. I didn’t ask about the fault or the philosophy behind why.

            Maybe jumping off a bridge is a good thing for others. That’s irrelevant. You said there were no reasons not to jump off a bridge. I gave very good reasons.

            So, back to the original question, what bad things would happen if the USDA were to alter it’s organic standards to allow GM crops to be used?

          • WeGotta

            You’re just doing what you always do.
            That’s picking and choosing and shucking and jiving.
            Then you accuse me of dancing when I’m just following you.

            Why can’t it?
            Why shouldn’t it?

            Why shouldn’t a unicorn have two horns? Why can’t it?
            It’s just a definition most people agree with. Nothing more.

            I already gave you a hypothetical “bad” outcome. Wasted resources.
            Here are some more.
            -We find out gmo is harmful 5 years from now.
            -We get another stupid label on food: “non-gmo organic”.
            -Someone loses a job and beats their child
            -Someone else gets a job and buys a new phone which he then uses to text and drive killing a family in the other car.

            Are you saying that such a change would have NO consequences at all or that all the consequences will be “good”?

          • WeGotta

            “While you’re at it, why do you rely on the “copy-cat” game so much?”

            Several reasons.
            -One of the foundations of critical thinking is consistency. Showing that a line of reasoning isn’t consistent out of that specific context reveals the errors.
            -It allows me to “speak the same language” as the other person which helps strip away any misunderstandings inherent in communication.
            -It pointedly and directly calls out the stupidity of the words some people use.
            -It’s fun.

          • Jason

            -One of the foundations of critical thinking is consistency. Showing that a line of reasoning isn’t consistent out of that specific context reveals the errors.

            But that’s not what you’re doing. What you’re doing is making an analogy that makes no sense what so ever and does not follow the same line of reasoning that you’re trying to refute. For example… Patriots quarterbacks can’t play for tampa bay…must be ideological. Clearly it isn’t. So that’s a failed analogy.

            -It allows me to “speak the same language” as the other person which helps strip away any misunderstandings inherent in communication.

            Well, because the analogies you end up making are so far removed from reality, it ends up have the exact opposite effect (strip away misunderstandings). What would be better at achieving your objective would be to answer clearly and concisely.

            -It pointedly and directly calls out the stupidity of the words some people use.

            Again… I’m not sure this is having your intended effect. Like I said… your analogies are so off target it actually does the exact opposite (calls out your own).

            -It’s fun.

            Whatever floats your boat I guess.

          • WeGotta

            This is just the same game you and others play when you have nothing left to say.

            You pretend you don’t understand and blame me.

            The reason the patriots quarterback can’t play for Tampa is the same reason gmo can’t be organic.
            Some people wrote some rules down and we all agree to follow them.

            How much easier could it be?

            But the last thing you and your buddies do is give clear and concise answers to questions.

          • Jason

            No… I’m afraid you’re wrong. There is no pretending. You legitimately don’t make an ounce of sense…. very often.

            The reason the patriots quarterback can’t play for Tampa is the same reason gmo can’t be organic.
            Some people wrote some rules down and we all agree to follow them.

            Two things.. I didn’t ask why they can’t. I asked why they shouldn’t. Second, a patriots quarterback can play for tampa if they work it our contractually (setting aside the difficulty being in 2 places at the same time). There are no rules against it. So.. do you see why this example doesn’t translate to what I was asking?

            edit: and a third thing – even if your example translated perfectly, it still doesn’t answer the question of why shouldn’t they be included in Organic regulations. It just give an example of something else that isn’t done.

            But the last thing you and your buddies do is give clear and concise answers to questions

            I can’t speak for others, but I go out of my way to show exactly what I’m responding to and explaining my position. I don’t have to do that, but I know it’s easier for others to understand. You, on the other hand….

          • WeGotta

            Gmo can be organic if they work it our contractually (setting aside the difficulty it would cause to those who want organic). There are no rules against it except the rules that exists until they change.

            I already told you there’s no reason anything should or shouldn’t be in the big picture.
            Why shouldn’t GE be abandoned altogether? There’s no reason it shouldn’t.

            Here’s your chance to be clear and concise.
            How is choosing a non-gmo product over a gmo product being “anti-science” or the same as an “anti-vaxer” when non-gmo techniques are science based?

          • Jason

            Ok, if there’s no reason that GM shouldn’t be organic then why do you dance around the question so much? Just say that. No one is “shucking or jiving”. You just refuse to give straight, coherent answers to anything. That makes it very difficult to follow a conversation without getting pulled into some unrelated tangent.

            How is choosing a non-gmo product over a gmo product being “anti-science” or the same as an “anti-vaxer” when non-gmo techniques are science based?

            I never said it was. Why are you changing the subject?

          • WeGotta

            Cool then, a breakthrough.

            Choosing non-gmo is just a choice that doesn’t have to mean anything and there’s no cosmic rules against changes to a definition.

          • Jason

            Choosing non-gmo is just a choice that doesn’t have to mean anything and there’s no cosmic rules against changes to a definition.

            See what I mean about changing the topic? Neither of us ever said anything about this during the entire thread. Yet… here it is. You do this so often that between this & the random, nonsensical analogies, it makes it impossible to understand what point you’re trying to get across. Literally… it’s as if you have a “Random Talking Point Generator” back there.
            Seriously… some debate classes would help.

          • WeGotta

            See what I mean about false accusations.

            We just talked about how non-gmo is a solid scientific choice and the whole topic was gmo and it’s place in the organic definition.

            Are you trying to wreck the progress we just made?

          • Jason

            Please go back and read the thread. We were discussing why gm crops shouldn’t be allowed in organic farming. At no point anywhere did anyone say anything about choosing non-gmo being unscientific.

            You constantly attempt to steer the conversation away from a topic you have no answer to. And as clumsy as those attempts are, I have to assume they’re intentional because you do it EVERY SINGLE TIME.

          • WeGotta

            Look a few comments up where you said “I never said it was.”

            So I guess what you gave was a just a non-answer then. Typical.

            And right when I was looking for that clear and concise stuff you talked about.

            Try again.
            Is choosing non-gmo over gmo being “anti-science” like avoiding vaccines?

          • Jason

            You’re changing the topic of the thread. If you want to discuss that topic, start a new thread. Ok?

          • WeGotta

            What a joke.

            Here is the whole point, position, topic and argument in a nutshell.

            Non-gmo is based on science. Choosing non-gmo is choosing science.

            If you can’t, won’t, or “shouldn’t” address my clear and concise statements directly, then you forfeit.

          • Jason

            That’s not the point of this thread. Please stay on point if you want to continue this discussion.

          • WeGotta

            Knew it.
            You forfeit any claims of directness, clarity or honesty.

            “That’s not the point of this thread.”
            Please. What a joke.

          • Jason

            I’m not sure someone who’s spent the better part of a day dancing around my question and trying to steer the conversation off topic really has the right to accuse anyone of being indirect.

            In fact, I’m the one trying to be direct by keeping the conversation on topic. Do you care to continue on that topic or not?

            At no where in the conversation did I say anything about anyone’s choices being unscientific or scientific. That is not part of the argument no matter how hard you try to inject it. It’s not working so don’t waste our time. Ok?

          • WeGotta

            Now it’s time for the excuses from you and more false accusations.

            We have already covered the fact that there are no laws of science that prohibit definitions from changing.

            Definitions often change in fact.

            You and your pals only have the same couple of tricks when all the bullshit is stripped away and you’re cornered.

            Run, hide, accuse others of doing what you just did.

          • Jason

            No one said there are any laws preventing definitions from changing. That’s not the topic. I never asked for a definition of anything. That’s just one of your efforts to divert the from the topic again.

            I find it amusing that you’re trying to project your inadiquacies on me. You get into a situation where someone has asked you a question you have no good answer for so you just don’t. You throw random analogies, you divert to questions that are unrelated, you clumsily insert topic changes and you throw a fit when someone doesn’t take the bait.

            You, my friend, are text book.

          • duplicat

            If he’s textbook, then you’re pornmag.

          • Jason

            I’m not really sure that plays…. but whatevs.

          • WeGotta

            Haha.
            He’s a PR firm manual.

          • Jason

            Awwww…. you know I’m right and it bugs you.

          • WeGotta

            Hahahahahahahaha!

            Hey, I started a “new thread” above hours ago. I guess you didn’t notice that one.

            Why not dazzle us with a clear and concise direct response on whether you agree or not.

            I know you won’t but I’ll try and hold it together.

        • WeGotta

          👆Case in point. 👆

  • WeGotta

    Oh my god!
    People are confused about food in a situation where most of what they hear about food is a lie!

    I like Keebler but some people say it’s misleading because it implies that cookies made by elves in trees are better.
    Scientists and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should really look into this!

  • WeGotta

    Choosing non-gmo is choosing science.
    Non-gmo is science based.

    People can choose non-gmo and it doesn’t have to mean anything more than when they choose flip flop technology over crocks.

    • Jason

      Of course people can choose non-gmo. Who’s ever debated that? A simple choice isn’t “anti-science”. Your reasons behind that choice could be.

      Choosing non-gmo isn’t choosing science any more than choosing gmo is. They are both created through science. They are both the same.

      You seem to be doing nothing here but trying to rationalize your ideology.

      • WeGotta

        Fail.

        Non-gmo techniques are based on science.
        Yes or no?

        Being that it’s solidly based on science, if you admonish someone’s non-gmo food choice without knowing why they made that choice, you are a hypocrite (making assumptions without evidence).
        Yes or no?

        Things deemed safe by scientific consensus could still cause you harm.
        Yes or no?

        Things that may cause harm are, by definition, risky.
        Yes or no?

        Multi billion dollar corporation most likely pay people to make favorable comments anonymously online.
        Yes or no?

        Refusal or failure to answer simple, but direct, questions like those above would be a characteristic of such liars.
        Yes or no?

        • Jason

          Try re-reading. I already answered your question. You seem to be trying really hard to force me to take a stance that I don’t agree with. Stay on topic and pay attention.

          • WeGotta

            You’re right about that.

            You don’t agree with science, honesty, integrity, clarity, ethics, facts, fairness or common sense.

            Enter this conversation as evidence that you are a lying PR firm shill.

            Don’t get me wrong. People need jobs and a shill is not the most despicable job you could have.

            Just know that I see right through your gossamer facade.

          • Jason

            Well, now you’re just being stupid. Have a nice weekend!

  • duplicat

    There’s a Monsanto propagandist below named Jason and he…[sniffles]…and he…[tear]…and he’s a big meanie.

    • Jason

      Ugh… you’re just awful at this. Why do you bother?

  • duplicat

    Bt corn will erode your intestines until you’re shitting in a bag!!!

    • Kevin Patti

      [citation needed]