Pesticides and food: It’s not a black and white issue

Special 6-part series starting on

FIRST ARTICLE: Has pesticide use decreased over the last 40 years?

Non-GMO Project logo not only deceives, it ironically features a genetically modified butterfly, scientist claims

| | October 25, 2018

Perhaps no group is more in the spotlight on the topic of labeling than The Non-GMO Project, whose monarch butterfly logo has become increasingly pervasive in the half-decade since it was created.

[T]he Information Technology & Innovation Foundation …. [has] released a citizen petition to the FDA challenging the use of The Non-GMO Project’s logo, saying that it “deliberately deceives and misleads consumers in violation of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

“They make the presumption that genetically modified organisms are a category that makes any sense at all,” said Val Giddings, who, along with Robert D. Atkinson, co-signed the ITIF petition. “The term ‘genetically modified organisms’ is a nonsense term ….”

Giddings went to great lengths to document the label’s scientific shortcomings …. “Every technique that scientists use in the lab to move DNA within or between organisms, and the enzymes we use to do that, are things that we have discovered in nature and figured out how they work,” he said.

Related article:  Scientists engineer bacteria-hunting virus to kill E. coli in drinking water

“There’s a towering irony here,” Giddings notes. “The Non-GMO Project uses a logo of a monarch butterfly. Scientists have discovered that monarch butterflies have themselves been genetically modified by viruses that are specific to lepidoptera, which have inserted viral DNA into those monarch butterflies in their past evolutionary history, making them, by any rational definition, genetically modified with foreign DNA.”

Read full, original article: Petitioner: ‘On no level’ is Non-GMO Project’s label defensible

The GLP aggregated and excerpted this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion, and analysis. Click the link above to read the full, original article.

15 thoughts on “Non-GMO Project logo not only deceives, it ironically features a genetically modified butterfly, scientist claims”

  1. This article is against the anti GMO movement and fails to do anything useful. The logo is an artistic rendering, and what Monsanto has done to create GMO corn that makes infertile seed is dangerous. Who pays for this advertised article to pop up on Google Newsfeed?


    • Makes infertile seed? Someone obviously needs an education. If gmos produced grain is infertile as you claim, then why has Monsanto not only patented the seed but sued a few farmers for keeping it for planting?

        • How many reasons would you like?

          1. In the case of golden rice they will someday bring vitamin a to billions that need it.
          2. They are better for the environment.
          3. Have drastically reduced insecticde usage.
          4. Have made farmers more efficient
          5. If you like papaya from Hawaii then gmos are for you since disease has ravaged most non gmo papaya their.
          6. If you like Florida oranges gmos provide the best hope of them being destroyed by disease.
          7. Same for bananas.

          I could go on, but as you can see in a battle of intelligence you are unarmed.

    • There are a number of plant breeding technologies that result in progeny that are infertile, but I don’t think this approach has been applied to major crops on a commercial scale. This is a non-issue promoted by activists.

      Ironically, some of the same anti-GMO activists claim that “GMO” crops are risky because they might escape into the wild, and infertility technology could address this concern.

      BTW using the hashtag doesn’t make you look any smarter, unless you have a credible point to make.

    • I don’t complain. I just don’t buy them. I tell the grocery store managers why I don’t buy them. They are interested in what I say, and in what I don’t buy, when it affects their bottom line..

  2. Why is this a thing?
    And why are people standing up for GMOs?
    I know for a fact from my own experience this logo is nothing but good and has brought me health benefits I litterally can’t eat GMO foods because it’s bad for my thyroid. This fake news is getting rediculous I hope people don’t actually believe this.

    • You had me at why is this a thing.

      It’s a thing for most scientists see bioengineering as a fruitful path to sustainable agriculture.

      There are many examples when “GMOS” are actually the organic thing you can do. Organic and nongmos use pesticides. Organic ones are just not synthetic .

      GMOs replace those with natural resistance that’s been engineered into the plant. By all accounts, this is better for us and the environment.

    • I know for a fact from my own experience that eating GMO foods is good for my thyroid. I literally avoid non-GMO labeling because those products throw my thyroid into goiteric spasms. I embrace my GMO-fed thyroid every day, praising the day that I first began nourishing it with the GMOs that it needs. You’re right, the fake news about GMOs coming from the organic screamers is getting ridiculous.

Leave a Comment

News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.

Send this to a friend