Top 5 Popular GMO Foods to Avoid

As you’ve already known, GMO foods are extremely unsafe because of the countless health risks and life-threatening diseases that they can cause in the long run. Even if consumers are now more aware about the negative effects of GMOs, greedy manufacturers still continue to produce and sell them to this day. They certainly won’t be stopping anytime soon, therefore it’s up to us to be more meticulous when it comes to buying safer foods.

Several studies have found that sugar beets, soy, canola, cotton, and corn are the top 5 crops that are often genetically-modified. These popular crops are severely altered and contain traces of pesticide that can cause major health problems like blood cancer, liver toxicity, kidney failure, gut inflammation, or even death.

What’s really scary is that these GMO crops are listed as innocent ingredients on many commercial products. They’re disguised in the form of brown sugar, fructose, glucose, modified starch, vegetable oil, and the like. So you really need to read the labels carefully to evade these creepy GMO products.

Get more facts about GMOs and how you can successfully avoid them in this special infographic below. Remember to share this online so you can help spread the word about GMO foods!

[via Home & Garden America]

GMO, yeah? 5 surprises from an otherwise boring look at genetically modified crops

Researchers at the USDA’s Economic Research Service have stepped back to look at the effect of genetically engineered crops since they were introduced in the U.S. It’s a pretty dry and unsurprising document, but when read carefully a few interesting things jump out. Here’s five.

1. How many GMO trials are there? Tons

There have been thousands and thousands a field trials, which have translated to just a handful of different traits. A lot of these must have been for different, locally adapted varieties of, say, insect resistance. But it was also interesting to see how many trials there were for the low-profile GMOs. There were tests of plants with disease resistance, and plants with “resistance to cold, drought, frost, salinity, more efficient use of nitrogen, increased yield.” In addition to the big three (corn, cotton, and soy), the USDA has approved 11 kinds of tomatoes, eight forms of canola, five potatoes, sugarbeets, papaya, rice, squash, alfalfa, plum, rose, tobacco, flax, and chicory. About 12 percent of the squash grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered for disease resistance.

2. Herbicide tolerance is sneaky

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans grow on more than 90 percent of the soy acres in the U.S. But there doesn’t seem to be a direct benefit to farmers in terms of significantly higher yields. So why pay more for the GMO seed? Here’s what the researchers say:

The fact that several researchers found no significant differences between the net returns of adopters and nonadopters of HT crops (particularly HT soybeans) despite the rapid adoption of these crops suggests that many adopters may derive nonmonetary benefits from HT adoption. In particular, weed control for HT soybeans may be simpler, freeing up management time for leisure, enterprise growth, or off-farm income-generating activities.

In addition, farmers pay less for specialized herbicides and for the diesel needed to run a weed-busting cultivator.

3. Insecticide use is way down

That’s among both farmers who used GE insect-resistant crops and those who didn’t. “Corn insecticide use by both GE seed adopters and nonadopters has decreased — only 9 percent of all U.S. corn farmers used insecticides* in 2010. Insecticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010.”

Wow. That’s a success story you don’t normally hear.

4. Traditional GMOs are increasingly monolithic

I’ve argued that we shouldn’t fight over “GMOs” but instead talk about the specific plants we like or dislike. There may be a problem with that argument: Now the main GE traits are coming bundled together. The argument, I think, still stands for rare cases (like disease resistance and Golden Rice).

5. Plowless farmers rise up

More and more farmers are growing crops with only minimal disturbance of the soil. That conserves topsoil, prevents run-off pollution, and allows for carbon capture in the fields. It’s good news, and it’s largely associated with the use of herbicide-tolerant crops (though I’m still not totally convinced the relationship is causal).

Here’s the entire doc for those who wish to dig deeper. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

*This is the percentage of farmers who applied insecticide to their fields. It doesn’t include the farmers that used insecticides just by planting seeds: Many seeds are coated with an insecticide, which the plant sucks up and uses to fend off bugs. These systemic insecticides may cause less collateral damage because they aren’t sprayed over the entire field, but there are suggestions that they may hurt pollinators.

[via

10 Apps to Help You Eat GMO Free

As the struggle for GMO labeling rages on, app developers are taking matters into their own hands. By creating apps that allow consumers to determine exactly what is in the products that they buy, these developers are giving you total freedom of choice. These apps all have multiple features for identifying different types of ingredients, which means installing a combination of apps will keep you better informed. These ten apps all identify GMO products, among other ingredients, so you can control exactly what you choose to have in your diet.

• Non-GMO Project Shopping Guide – As it says on the can, this app provides consumers with a guide to shopping non-GMO. The Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program is a collaboration of a number of corporations whose aim is to help consumers make more informed choices in their purchases. The guide is completely free and is periodically updated with new contributions.
• Healthy Food, Allergens, GMOs & Nutrition Scanner – This Nutrition Scanner costs $3.99 and allows you to quickly determine exactly what is in the food you are shopping for. The scanner reads food labels and returns information on nutrition, ingredients additives and whether the product contains any GMOs. You don’t need to wonder which ingredients are dangerous, either, as the app has a caution rating for potentially undesirable contents.
• Buycott – If you are passionate about supporting companies that you believe have ethical practices, Buycott will help you stick to your principles. The app can trace food items back through the production chain, keeping you informed of every company involved in bringing the item to the supermarket shelf. The free app also provides contact details for each company, so you can voice your concerns or support for any given product.
• True Food – For conscientious consumers, True Food provides a real-time guide to shopping non-GMO. Every day the app will update with new alerts, news and tips on how to avoid GMO products, and where to find suitable alternatives. With over 70% of food products in the U.S. containing GMOs, this free app is definitely worth installing on your iPhone.
• ShopNoGMO – With 23 food categories that contain no GMOs, this free app gives you the power to decide which products you want to feed your family. The app is not limited to when you shop, however, as there is also a useful feature to help you avoid GMOs when dining out. Besides information on GMOs, there are helpful tips on sourcing organic foods and identifying other potentially unhealthy ingredients.
• GMO Checker – You can use this app to quickly identify products that are organic, vegan, gluten free and GMO free. GMO Checker uses a simple search function, which returns results with a color-coded key that tells you whether the product contains ingredients from the category list. While the app has a simple interface, it does cost $3.99, so it is not the cheapest option on the market.
• ipiit, The Food Ambassador – ipiit is a completely collaborative app with a database that is constantly growing due, in part, to user contributions. The database contains over 210,000 food products, with information on Gluten, Lactose, HFCS, GMO and much more. Users can set up their own preferences, making it easier to find the foods that match your needs. Rating foods on this free app will help keep the community informed so everyone can share in promoting healthier food choices.
• Chemical Maze – Whether you are concerned about what’s in your food, cosmetics or pet products, Chemical Maze will help keep you informed. You can filter results by category, effects, origin or symptoms, depending on what you want to find out about a product. This is the free addition of the app, however, there is also a paid edition with added features.
• Barcode and PLU Label Reader – Although this app is a Barcode and PLU reader, you have to manually enter the codes. With that said, the app does provide a lot of useful information that will help you purchase the healthiest products and avoid GMOs. Barcode and PLU Label Reader costs $1.99 and has a 4+ user rating on the iTunes store.
• Fruit Checker – A PLU label reader for fruits and vegetables, Fruit Checker will confirm whether products are certified organic, conventionally grown or genetically modified. In some cases the app will tell you where the product was grown, too. The app is useful, but limited for the price-tag of $0.99.

[via The Food Revolution Network]

How Eating Organic Saves Animals

There has been a lot of debate in recent years about the effect that GMOs and pesticide-laden foods have on human health, but what is rarely discussed is the environmental impact of the use of these chemicals and the harm they cause to animals.

It’s clear that food manufacturers are going through great lengths to prevent these chemicals from being labelled on foods. What’s most concerning, from an environmental point of view, is that the vast majority of chemical pesticides sprayed on crops actually gets washed off before foods end up in the supermarkets. When the pesticides run off into top soil and waterways, it is entering a vast network of ecosystems, and these delicate systems are not equipped to deal with hazardous toxic chemicals.

To avoid these types of destruction and to help ensure ecosystems are healthy, it is best to opt for organically-grown foods. The following are just four ways going organic can save the lives of animals and subsequently save our environment.

Organic Crops Offer Bees Perfect Pollinating Grounds

There is a growing honey bee crisis across the globe as huge numbers of bee colonies are dying off each year, a problem which could ultimately cause catastrophe for all our food supplies. Scientists have linked “colony collapse disorder” with the chemicals used in non-organic food production and have warned that, if we continue the widespread use of chemicals on our crops, there will be almost no bees left to pollinate them in a decade. Although the chemicals are used in levels which are not considered deadly to the individual bees, hoards of pollen are collected and taken back to the hives, where the overall toxicity is enough to cause damage to the entire colony. Organic food crops are beneficial for the bees and support their existence by providing safe plants to collect pollen from.

Organic Crops Provide Bird-Friendly Seeds

While the plight of the honey bee is widely known, there are plenty more animals who suffer the effects of consuming and transporting chemical containing plants. Birds love to eat seeds, and they are unknowingly eating GMO and pesticide covered seeds that are causing illness and death. The American Bird Conservancy conducted a thorough investigation on the issue in 2013 and discovered that a single non-organic seed kernel can be very dangerous to birds, killing small ones, and making larger ones ill. Many seeds that are sown do not get covered properly and seed spillage is also commonplace, meaning birds are accessing these toxic seeds all the time.

Organic Crops Nearly Eliminate Chemical Run Off

One of the largest problems caused by chemical use in the agriculture industry is the toxic run off which occurs after rainfall. Chemical pesticides are sprayed indiscriminately over huge areas of cropland, much of which lands directly onto the ground. When rain falls, this is washed off into the topsoil and soaks down into the subsoil, making it very dangerous for any animals who inhabit the soils. Insects and small mammals are particularly at risk from the soil contamination as their habitat is turned into a highly potent toxic layer. In many cases, this is the desired effect of the pesticide, as it is these insects which are the intended targets of the chemical poisoning.

Organic Crops Help Prevent Water Contamination

Once the chemical run off has made it through the top and subsoil layers, it finds its way into the water system. Arguably, this is where the chemicals do the most widespread damage to the environment and the delicate ecosystems which the planet relies on. Streams, rivers, ponds, and lakes in the areas surrounding non-organic monocultures are becoming increasingly toxic, to the detriment of the aquatic species that live there. The problem is becoming so bad that the chemical run off is creating ‘dead zones’ in which barely any animals are able to survive as the water has become too polluted. The chemical fertilizers used on farms also create huge algae blooms in the water, and this kills off other species trying to survive in the same water.

These four issues are enough reason alone to support eating organic. The world’s ecosystems have taken millions of years to form and they work on a very precise and delicate balance. Although large corporations may want to make us believe that their chemicals are perfectly safe for us to use, the signs are clear for us to see, and they’re certainly not safe for the animals coming into contact with them.

[via One Green Planet]

The Natural Effect

Check out the new Only Organic Campaign! The organic seal indicates that food has been grown in ways that has passed nature’s own test for being good for you and good for nature.

In this hilarious video "The False Advertising Industry" reveals the shocking truth about what is allowed in "Natural" food. As a reminder to not be convinced otherwise, only the USDA Organic Seal guarantees your food contains no Genetically Modified Organisms, no toxic pesticides, and no growth hormones or antibiotics

Food labels that claim a food is "natural" may not guarantee that food is good for you or for nature. In fact, many so-called "natural" foods contain the toxic chemical pesticides, antibiotics, hormones and genetically engineered ingredients that are harming people and the planet. Only the organic seal guarantees that food is being made in ways that Mother Nature intended.

FDA considers "natural" food to mean "nothing artificial or synthetic (including colors regardless of source) is included in, or has been added to, the product that would not normally be expected to be there." But, federal regulators do not enforce the policy. And, many heavily processed foods containing "unnatural" ingredients designed to make food look better or last longer carry the "natural" label.

Some familiar foods using the "all-natural" promise include:

• Some Greek Yogurt labeled as "natural" is made using milk from cows fed genetically engineered ingredients. Sound natural to you?
• Despite being labeled "100% Natural", Corn Oil is often made with genetically engineered corn.  
• "All Natural" chips may sound healthy, but they actually contain genetically engineered ingredients.
• Granola products can contain highly processed ingredients, such as high fructose corn syrup, despite their "all natural" claims.
• Orange Soda can be "naturally flavored"...despite having high fructose corn syrup listed as an ingredient.
• Some companies advertise their frozen food products as made with "100% Natural white-meat chicken", even though its chickens are raised with the use of antibiotics. 
• Some frozen meals say "100% Natural", but really contain genetically modified ingredients. 
• “All Natural” Ice Cream...is it really natural? Hardly. It can come form cows treated with hormones and fed a diet containing pesticides. 
• Turkey Breasts labeled as "All Natural" can use turkeys that have never been outdoors. Sound natural to you? 
• Cheese labeled as "natural" could have been made using milk from cows injected with hormones, kept in poor conditions or fed genetically engineered food. 

[via Only Organic]

Organic Trade Association's New CEO on the Future of Organics

In the midst of the frenzy kicked up by Cheerios’ GMO-free announcement, the organic world has been buzzing with its own important news after the Organic Trade Association named longtime industry veteran Laura Batcha to become the association’s CEO and executive director.

Batcha will take the helm of the North American organization at a time when the organic sector is beginning to regain stronger annual growth numbers while continuing to face challenges in promoting, clarifying and differentiating the attributes of the organic seal in relation to the non-GMO, local and natural categories.

Batcha has had her hands in the organic industry for more than 20 years, beginning in 1989 when she worked on an organic farm in Santa Cruz, Calif. Later on, she started her own herbal business and held several leadership positions at Tom’s of Maine before joining the Organic Trade Association six years ago. She began as the association's marketing and public relations director and climbed the ranks to become executive vice president before her most recent promotion.

Batcha said one of the association's top priorities will be continuing to support the National Organic Program and its oversight of the organic seal. That work has recently included pushing for a provision in the upcoming Farm Bill to provide one-time financial assistance to the National Organic Program to update its technology systems.

Marketing the Organic Message

On a broader market-level view, the OTA's industry analysis describes a continued challenge in overcoming consumer confusion over the different benefits of organic food versus natural, non-GMO and local alternatives. Many consumers don't understand that the organic certification prohibits the use of GMOs, for example, the report said.

It's a challenge the OTA is taking on through education and promotional efforts that include advocating for policies that protect the rights of organic producers and handlers to make claims around, for example, the non-GMO guarantee that organics offer. There’s also movement to form an organic checkoff program, a quasi-government structure that allows the industry to self-pool money to fund education, promotion and research to support the industry á la the Got Milk? campaign.

“It’s a way for the industry to really have a big enough megaphone to communicate that message to the public consistently,” Batcha said. “At any given time, 30 percent of shoppers choosing organic have only been buying organic for less than two years, so our burden for education won’t go away.”

On mounting energy behind national or state-driven GMO labeling efforts, Batcha acknowledged they have the potential to increase competition with the green organic seal. But they also have spurred consumer desire to make more informed choices about their food which is a positive. It’s the job of organics to educate consumers about the additional benefits the organic label brings to the table, she said.

“What we have to do as an organic industry is make sure the consumer understands that it’s not apples to apples. The organic field offers more,” she said.

Taking Organic to the Masses

The increase in shelf space devoted to organic products at mass-market retailers and the growth in private label organic products are both trends Batcha said will likely continue. Eight of twelve private label categories tracked in 2012 experienced double-digit growth that year, according to the OTA's 2013 industry survey. A combination of trust, convenience and price has driven consumers to choose those brands, the report said.

On the international stage, mass-market retailers like Costco are becoming key players in bringing U.S. produce to other countries, Batcha said.

“As long as the trend for the consumer is more organic products, which it will continue to be, more outlets are going to be interested in attracting those shoppers to their stores,” she said. 

[via New Hope 360]

Maybe your 2014 New Year’s Resolution Should Be Eating Vegan Mayo

Why eat Vegenaise if you aren’t a vegan? Mayo can be enough of a culinary risk of its own (we try not to think about it too much). Well, apparently Vegenaise is AWESOME. So swears Slate writer Katherine Goldstein in the slightly hyperbolically titled “The Most Incredible Condiment You Probably Aren’t Using”:

The flavor was much lighter than regular mayo, and had a pleasing balance of flavors that made regular Hellmann’s taste both too sweet and too sour by comparison. Vegenaise’s texture is pleasantly smooth and airy, and much less goopy than store-bought mayo.

Did we mention that it’s made with solar power and is totally GMO-free? And it comes in fancy flavors like pesto, roasted garlic, and BBQ? OK, this is sounding pretty good …

As I tried it on a range of foods … slowly but surely, I realized its motto was right. Vegenaise, shockingly, tastes better than mayo. As an added bonus, it has less saturated fat and cholesterol than the regular stuff. And while many meat substitutes have ingredient lists that read like a science experiment, Vegenaise actually has no additives or preservatives.

Lest you discount Goldstein as a freak Vegenaise evangelist, she force-fed 15 coworkers the stuff, and 12 of them preferred it to regular mayo.

There’s only one way to find out if Vegenaise is actually better than mayonnaise, as its tagline claims: Try it. Hey, that’s a way better New Year’s resolution than going to the gym, right?

[via grist]

Anti-GMO Coalition: If the Government Won’t Label, We Should Do it Ourselves

 
We’re still figuring out what exactly happened with Washington’s I-522 labeling bill, but considering some recent news that Big Food plans to make sure GMO labeling cannot happen at the federal level, we’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure people know what they’re consuming!

In light of these and other events surrounding the struggle to fight GMO cultivation and anti-labeling proponents, GMOInside.org, a coalition of organizations fighting for the GMO “right to know,” has made a novel suggestion: If the companies won’t label GMO foods, we should do it ourselves!

GMO Inside has made the distinction that it’s illegal for us to label foods in the grocery store. Meaning that, if we haven’t already bought it and removed it from the store, then it’s hands-off.

But, the organization encourages, if it’s in your home or your family members’ snack shelf or present at a community event or in the office, it’s fair game (though we can’t guarantee you won’t get swatted by your co-workers).

GMO Inside has provided colored labels indicating traditional “caution” images indicating that the labeled food may contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The goal, GMO Inside says, is to raise awareness. If you label your co-worker’s lunch for them, they may just ask what you know about GMOs. And the more people that know, the more ground we gain in the fight to label GMO products.

[via One Green Planet]

Would GMO Labeling Jack Up Food Prices?

The push to require labels for genetically modified food, which flared up in California before drowning under a flood of industry cash last year, is now underway in Washington state. Predictably, agrichemical and organic interests are pouring money into, respectively, defeating and supporting a ballot initiative called I-522, which would require foods containing GMO ingredients to bear labels. Just as predictably, the agribusiness interests are garnering much more money to kill the effort than their organic peers are in supporting it—outspending them $17.1 million to $4.6 million, the Spokane-Review reported.

Meanwhile, in a development that broke late Wednesday, the Washington state attorney general has filed a complaint alleging that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that donated $2 million to the effort to defeat California's labeling initiative, violated state campaign laws and "spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors," according to its press release.

As in California, the effect on food prices is emerging as a point of contention. Opponents of labeling, pointing to a 2012 study prepared during the California fight by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, say that the new rules would cost consumers $350 to $400 annually per household. The Northbridge paper, though, was funded by the industry-dominated campaign to stop Prop 37, as the California initiative was known. Campaign records show that Northridge received a total of $97,371 in five payments during 2012.

Supporters of the Washington initiative, in turn, point to a rival 2012 study, this one prepared by Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law, which found that "food prices [are] likely to remain unchanged for consumers." That study was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health, a group that advocates for "the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer."

So which is right? Over at Grist, Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the progressive think tank Demos, argues that labeling wouldn't likely cost consumers much at all. The cost of changing labels would be trivial, he writes—food manufacturers "do it all the time." Ever seen the words "new and improved" on some boxed delicacy?

The Northbridge study, he shows, is based on the assumption that, in order to avoid having to declare that their products contain GMOs, food manufactures will rapidly switch over to non-GMO ingredients, which would cost more to procure. That's because upwards of 80 percent of US corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are genetically modified—and iterations of these three crops suffuse US processed foods, providing sweeteners (high-fructose corn syrup and beet sugar), fats (corn and soy oil), and a litany of ingredients like various thickeners. For food manufacturers to get non-GMO versions of these substances, they'd have to pay a premium in the marketplace—hence higher ingredient costs that they'd want to pass on to consumers.

But that effect wouldn't last long, Lipsky argues. "If labeling were required, particularly if (and when) the labeling requirement is adopted by other states, demand for non-GMO versions of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets—the basic GMO crops—would increase, production would expand, and prices for non-GMO ingredients would decline," he writes. That makes good sense: basic supply and demand.

And here's something Lipsky didn't get to: Even in the short term, the effect on retail prices would likely be small. That's because ingredients make up a tiny portion of the expenses incurred by manufactures to process food and move it to grocery store shelves. Transportation, marketing, processing—all of these things cost more than the actual food in the box of cereal or frozen dinner at Walmart.

How tiny are the costs of ingredients? Consider a box of corn flakes—which are presumably made largely of GMO corn (it's impossible to know for sure, because no US state requires labeling). In this 2008 report (currently available online because it has been republished on a non-government server) on the effect of ethanol on food prices, a US Department of Agriculture researcher crunched the numbers (pun fully intended) on the how much money companies spend on corn to make your cereal:

[A]n 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents.

And what happened after the corn ethanol program pushed corn prices up to $3.49 per bushel—a 49 percent jump? The total cost of corn in the cereal box rose to 4.9 cents. In other words, paying a 49 percent premium pushed up the corn cost in a box of corn flakes a grand total of 1.6 cents. An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains 18 servings—meaning that much-pricier corn translated to an increase of less than 0.1 cents per bowl. For a family of four that consumes four bowls of flakes every day, that's about $1.46 extra for the year.

So even if manufacturers had to pay a hefty premium for non-GMO corn, the retail price of food would barely budge. Whatever you think about GMO labeling, the concern that it would significantly jack up food prices is probably specious.

[via Mother Jones]

Who’s paying for GMO-labeling initiative campaigns?

Groups opposed to labeling genetically modified food outspent those in favor 5 to 1 last year when Californians voted on a labeling ballot measure. But the tables are turned in the run-up to an initiative vote in Washington state. So far, pro-labeling groups have spent more than $4 for every $1 spent by those opposed, according to an analysis by MapLight.

Contributions in support of Washington Ballot Initiative 522 (“The People’s Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act”) add up to nearly $4 million $3.5 million, while the opposition has raised about $950,000. The big money comes from the same interests that ponied during the California campaign, as you can see in this chart.

That chart only shows the biggest contributors. Pro-labeling contributions come from a broader base; the money supporting the initiative comes from 5,698 supporters, compared to just 12 contributors in opposition.

The relative weight of contributions, however, is likely to shift rapidly as the Washington initiative approaches its Nov. 5 moment of truth at the ballot box. Last year, the campaign against the California proposition spent $42 million in the six weeks before the vote. That proposition failed, with 6.4 million “no” votes, and 6.1 million votes in favor.

After that vote, both sides promised to fight just as vigorously in future campaigns. There are dozens of bills currently making their way through statehouses that would require the labeling of GM foods.

Editor’s Note and Correction: This story includes a chart from MapLight showing supporters of 1-522 had given $3,869,078. The correct number is $3,489,078.13, according to a MapLight correction.

MapLight has issued this update: “A previous version of MapLight’s analysis cited the total amount raised in support of I-522 as $3,869,078, including two contributions that were disclosed by the Washington Public Disclosure Commission as having been made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND’ when in fact they were made by ‘ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE.’ As a committee that is supporting I-522, contributions from ORGANIC CONSUMER FUND COMMITTEE TO LABEL GMOS IN WA STATE to other committees supporting I-522 should be excluded from the total amount raised in support of this measure, making the correct total $3,489,078.13.”

[via grist]

GMOs Are Not Just In Food Products

GMOs have known to mainly be in our food and beverages in the grocery store. Many well known victims to genetic modification are squash, corn, soy and many other similar fruits and vegetables. Well the last thing you would think about it GMOs in your home products, you don't ingest them, just use them. According to Natural Cures Not Medicine, this may be the case after all.

Beauty Care Products

Many beauty care products like deodorant sprays, lotions, and facial cleansers, contain GMO derivatives. Look out for denatured alcohol which is simply ethanol made from BT corn. Also be weary of creams made with soy protein isolates, or dehydrogenated soy ingredients as these are also likely GMO.

Cotton

Is that shirt that you have on right now Organic? GM cotton covers more than 15 million hectares on the planet is accounts for more than 70 percent of all cotton grown. Chances are that your cotton swabs and balls are also GM Cotton.

Ink

While soy ink is marketed as an alternative to petroleum based products it is made from GM soy beans. Soy ink is printed on a variety of items from newspapers to magazines. It is also readily absorbed through the skin.

Hand Sanitizer

Not only do hand sanitizers fuel the creation of antibiotic resistant super bugs but they also contain ethanol made from GM corn.

Gasoline

When you go to the pump and see those little stickers that are appearing everywhere that say “May Contain up to 10% ethanol” you can rest assured that it is not ethanol derived from organically grown corn. The idiotic government subsidies shoved into the horribly inefficient process of ethanol production are ending up as fumes in traffic that you and I are breathing in.

So now you know whether you are consuming or using, GM products should never be trusted and can come into your life without even knowing it at all.  Exposure to these products can leave a after effect. Remember to go organic, the safest route of all, as it doesn't contain harmful chemicals or GM product.

14-year-old Debates GMOs with Condescending TV Host

A Canadian television host’s attempts to school a 14-year-old girl did not quite go according to plan.

Kevin O’Leary, the co-host of the popular CBC business news program “The Lang and O’Leary Exchange,” must have thought he had laid the perfect trap for teen anti-GMO activist Rachel Parent.

The problem for O’Leary is that Parent, the founder of the pro-GMO labeling group Kids Right to Know, proved to be no pushover.

After a spirited debate on whether Canadian and US governments should rely on health studies conducted by genetically modified seed makers such as Monsanto, and the question of whether possible health benefits of GMO crops outweighed environmental concerns, O’Leary seemed to concede that the marketplace trend was heading toward transparency.

Throughout last week's interview, an incredulous O’Leary pressed his contention that Parent had been co-opted by anti-GMO groups, rather than having arrived at her conclusions independently.

The clip of the debate between Parent and O’Leary quickly went viral, and has been viewed on YouTube more than 300,000 times.