Many Foods Labeled Natural Contain GMOs

July 02, 2015

Dateline: Sante Fe, New Mexico

by Paul Fassa, Natural Health Journalist

(UtopiaSilver.com) A lot of folks think if a food label says natural, they’re in the clear buying and consuming its contents. It’s even commonly assumed that natural on food labels implies organic. And for those concerned, it must mean that it’s GMO free even if not organic. But the processed food industry thrives on FDA sanctioned deceit, unfortunately. The truth is, many foods labeled Natural contain GMOs.

Some months ago, Consumer Reports, “Food Safety and Sustainability” division discovered that natural labels are used to slip GMOs into consumer processed food purchases, and of course none of them are organic unless labeled so.

The person conducting this Consumer Reports study, Urvashi Rangan, also discovered that many of the packages with “natural” or “all natural” adorning their labels contained GMOs.

FDA labeling laws generally grant loopholes and allowances that actually allow certain additives to be used that if recognized could by enough consumers could cause lower revenues for the food companies involved. The USDA has allowed a few loopholes themselves, usually in fine print, with their USDA Certified Organic labeling.

The Food Industry’s Labeling Con Exposed

The Consumer Reports Urvashi Rangan natural label study included 80 samples of products with any amounts of soy or corn found in processed foods, cereals for the kids and adults, chips, and even baby formulas. Many products that are not totally soy or corn contain some element of either one, and either one can be GMO.

The Consumer Reports testing limit for whether it should be labeled GMO was just under one percent (.9%) GMO for the whole product. That’s the same standard used to require GMO labeling throughout the European Union, where GMO labeling is required. None of the items labeled organic, non GMO, or no GMOs exceeded that mark. Most of the items marked natural did.

Interestingly, this Consumer Reports testing result came out just as the Grocers Manufacturers Association had begun pushing for loosening federal policies on label rules to allow labeling foods “natural” that are known to have GMO contents. Now why would they want to do that?

Some of the Grocers Manufacturers Association’s over 300 member companies have been sued for not revealing GMO content when their product labels showed “natural” or “all natural”, and this Association must protect their food production and grocer clients by changing the rules instead of curbing their enthusiasm for deceptive marketing.

Several of those company members in the Grocers Manufacturers Association have been among the biggest financial contributors against GMO requirement legislative proposals in every state that goes to ballot over the GMO labeling requirement issue. Now you know why. Their packaged and processed foods all contain some levels of GMOs.

Labeling Law Attempts – Are They Worth It?

Let’s face it, most American consumers want only cheap tasty foods served quickly and easily. They don’t care about GMOs or dangerous pesticides and herbicides or how dairy cows are fed. If you observe fast food drive-thru lanes around the end of a work day you’ll see their priorities.

The documentary “Fast Food Nation” didn’t come up with that title for no reason. This ain’t France folks, where school children are provided organic locally grown foods prepared by chefs in training.

Besides, a labeling system is already in place. It’s from the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit third party that tests processed foods for GMO content that’s funded by food companies, which want to display they’re not GMO infested. The Non-GMO Project uses the same standard as Europe and Consumer Reports, if the total GMO product content amount is less then .9%, it’s clean enough to be called GMO free.

Then the Non-GMO Project’s blue and green Verified NON GMO Project label with its orange butterfly logo is stamped onto the package to certify it’s GMO free. Sure, the Non-GMO Project labels are mostly confined to health food store products. But those stores have more folks shopping who do care about avoiding GMOs. Even some organic food sources can be contaminated.

Front Groups Con the Public Threatening High Food Prices if GMO Labeling Laws Pass

Those food industry people have plenty of petty cash to throw at consumers bringing GMO labels to ballot on a state level who have to dig into their own pockets. Consumer campaign efforts require a lot of effort from volunteers while the hired PR boys simply do their disinformation campaigns on a gullible public, as they normally do, using paid front groups.

Front groups for the biotech industry use names like The Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition (CACFLP), appear to be grass roots, but they are AstroTurf, fake grass roots. A front group is a bunch PR guys and gals with no moral compass that are hired by whatever corporation wants their agenda to look like its the will of the people.

They like to promote how food prices will increase more across the board from labeling GMOs. The CACFLP and other industry funded front groups claimed that food prices would increase from $400 to $800 per year for a family of four if GMO labeling laws were passed in California, Washington, and New York.

But again, it was Consumer Reports’ policy making “Consumers Union” department that hired an independent economic research firm, ECONorthwest, prior to and during the state of Oregon’s attempt to vote for GMO labeling legislation. The ECONorthwest analysis determined the median cost that might be passed on to consumers is just $2.30 per person annually, or $9.20 for a family of four.

The GMO Labeling Movement May Have Been Compromised

One wonders why this information doesn’t get out to the public during labeling legislation campaigns. Why is that movement asserting it’s only about “consumer choice” instead of companies that poison are making your food to sell more of their poison? What’s wrong with the leadership?

Jon Rappoport points out that Scott Faber, the executive director of Just Label It was a former VP of the anti-GMO labeling Grocers’ Manufacturers Association. And he also points to executive director of Natural Products Association Daniel Fabricant’s shady past as the director of the Division of Dietary Supplement Programs at the FDA.

Could it be, as Jon Rappoport suggests, that the GMO labeling movement’s leadership was usurped by industry inserted moles? Hmmm, highly suspicious indeed.

Here’s an interesting short video report: 5 GMO Myths Busted.

Sources:
http://www.greenerchoices.org/pdf/CR_FSASC_GMO_Final_Report_10062014.pdf
http://www.inspirationgreen.com/vote-yes-on-37.html
http://www.nongmoproject.org/
http://www.nongmoproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Standard-v12-FINAL-ratified-5.15.15.pdf
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/06/14/organizations-on-anti-gmo-labeling.aspx
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2014/10/will-gmo-labeling-boost-your-grocery-bill/index.htm
https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2014/12/30/natural-health-scott-faber-dan-fabricant-really/

Share