Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Biotech Businesses Science

Cheerios To Go GMO-Free 419

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "ABC News reports that General Mills has ended the use of genetically modified ingredients in Cheerios, its flagship breakfast food. General Mills has been manufacturing its original-flavor Cheerios without GMOs for the past several weeks in response to consumer demand. Original Cheerios will now be labeled as 'Not Made With Genetically Modified Ingredients,' although that it is not an official certification. 'We were able to do this with original Cheerios because the main ingredients are oats,' says Mike Siemienas, noting that there are no genetically modified oats. The company is primarily switching the cornstarch and sugar to make the original Cheerios free of GMOs. Green America has been targeting Cheerios for the past year to raise the profile of the anti-GMO movement. 'This is a big deal,' says Green America's Todd Larsen. 'Cheerios is an iconic brand and one of the leading breakfast cereals in the U.S. We don't know of any other example of such a major brand of packaged food, eaten by so many Americans, going from being GMO to non-GMO.' For its part, General Mills says, It's not about safety,' and will continue to use GMOs in other food products."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cheerios To Go GMO-Free

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03, 2014 @06:38PM (#45861227)

    Nope, this is a lobbying message subsidized by Monsanto and co, it is actually very possible to feed everyone with the food we create and the land we have. More importantly, it hides the fact that GMOs are not at all used to feed the aforementioned starving peoples. Quite contrarily, GMO seeds have been repeatedly used for market domination through legislative bullying, most infamously ending in the suicide of farmers in india due to non-affordable seed prices after Monsanto cleared the market from other companies by undercutting and legal bullying before rising the cost.

  • by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @06:43PM (#45861269)

    The TPP will make it illegal to label your food GMO free and no, it won't matter what your nation's legislature had to say on the topic or would like to say later. The TPP will supercede the laws of you nation's legislature: [] [] [] [] []

  • by andydread ( 758754 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @06:52PM (#45861361)
    Yes but patenting lifeforms then suing zealously over those patented lifeforms that contaminate non-gmo farms is bad so say no to GMO until they quit patenting life.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03, 2014 @07:03PM (#45861485)

    You can't say that honestly.

    There are literally hundreds of studies out there and most of them are either inconclusive or show no evidence of harm. See here:

    Initial indications are of harm from glyphosate residues and retained b.t. toxin, at least in pregnant women in the latter case.

    Citations needed.

    The truth is we don't know the effects very well and we do know that irresponsible farmers aren't using roundup-ready processes diligently.

    Actually, glyphosate is a very well-researched chemical. There are many studies on it that consider it safe for use when used properly.

    With that said, farmers who violate the federal regulations on pesticide application are themselves to blame, not the pesticide producers.

    Also, it needs to be pointed out that BT toxin is available as a spray (as opposed to plants that have been genetically modified to produce it) that is often used by organic farmers (it's approved by the USDA for use on USDA Certified Organic farms) and other farmers who may not be planting GM seed.

    Unfortunately, reckless use has caused unrelated crops like golden rice to be rejected out of fear, which very definitely causes harm (not to mention boatloads of corn bound for starvation areas rejected in Zimbabwe and Zambia out of similar fear).

    The people who are opposing golden rice are mainly misanthropic environmental extremists and other scientifically illiterate activists who come from privileged backgrounds. The blame for the sabotage of golden rice trials is squarely upon their heads, not anyone else, and it's rather shameful that you try to pin the blame on farmers.

  • by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @07:19PM (#45861625)

    Recent EPA regulatory actions have been to allow INCREASES in glyphosate residues in food because of proven long term safety.

    From: []

    Epidemiological studies have not found associations between long term low level exposure to glyphosate and any disease.

    The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in dermal and oral acute toxicity. The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.

    Primary references available in Wikipedia article.

  • by NoNonAlphaCharsHere ( 2201864 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @07:30PM (#45861705)
    <sigh> The original poster gave ALL the credit for feeding a billion starving people to (only) Genetically Modified/Engineered seeds, completely ignoring the better irrigation, fertilization, insect control, and crop rotation practices, and yes, hybrid seeds that have been being exported to the third world for the last 60-or-so years. I was simply taking exception to his outrageously false claim. Yet somehow, he's Insightful, and I'm Overrated. I think many people would have much less of a problem with GMO foods in general if Monsanto's business practices weren't so oppressively evil, and the notion of routinely spraying Roundup on all our cereal grains (both for humans and livestock) weren't quite so heinous.
  • by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @07:33PM (#45861747)

    Yeah you're wrong. It will ban GMO labeling , country of origin labeling and many other of the same types of consumer information that, people think is important to them (which I actually don't except that other people do want these things and they have the right to know )

    Letter form Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro (CT-3), Ranking Member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, to the United States Trade Representative, Ambassador Ron Kirk:

    from: []

    First, past FTAs incorporate the WTOâ(TM)s sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and technical barriers to trade rules, which are deeply problematic. These rules set ceilings on signatory countriesâ(TM) domestic food safety standards. As a result, WTO panels have ruled against the U.S. meat country-of-origin labeling requirements and voluntary dolphin-safe tuna labels in challenges brought by other WTO countries. We must learn from the record of WTO implementation and modify the food safety-related rules of U.S. trade pacts to best protect the public health, starting with a TPP FTA.

    The FDA has also engaged in extensive harmonization of food safety standards, as required by the WTO SPS rules and our past FTAs. If a TPP FTA is to include food safety harmonization, then it must ensure existing U.S. standards are not weakened. I believe this should include requiring that harmonization may only be conducted on the basis of raising standards toward the best standards of any signatory country and that, with respect to the United States, such international-standard setting should provide the public an opportunity to comment while maintaining an open and transparent process.

    In addition, the past FTA model includes the establishment of new SPS committees to speed up implementation of mechanisms to facilitate increased trade volumes, including âoeequivalenceâ determinations. The equivalence rule requires the United States to permit imports of meat, poultry and now possibly seafood products that do not necessarily meet U.S. food safety standards. I firmly believe that all food sold to American consumers must be required to meet U.S. safety standards, and that a TPP FTA should not include equivalence rules as the basis for the United States accepting food imports.

    Finally, past FTAs allow for private enforcement of extensive foreign investor rights. Under these rules, foreign food corporations operating within the United States are empowered to demand compensation from the U.S. government in foreign tribunals established under the United Nations and World Bank if U.S. regulatory actions undermine their expected future profits. Even when the United States successfully defends against such attacks, such as in the NAFTA investor-state case brought by the Canadian Cattlemen for Fair Trade over the U.S. ban on imports of live Canadian cattle after the discovery of a case of mad cow disease in Canada, the initial filing of the challenge has a chilling effect on policymaking and the U.S. government must spend millions on a legal defense. Accordingly, I believe a TPP FTA must not include investor-state rules that would allow corporations to weaken U.S. food safety in foreign tribunals thereby unnecessarily placing American consumers at risk.

    The food safety issues raised by the TPP FTA negotiations are expansive and in many instances already controversial. Failure to deal with these issues during the negotiations will only create more opposition to a prospective agreement. I therefore urge you to act in the interest of public health and maintain the United Statesâ(TM) strong lea

  • by icebike ( 68054 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @08:39PM (#45862267)

    Radiation mutation in agriculture is a myth, it was the favorite whipping boy of the same people who cry about current GMO gene splicing technologies.

    The actual truth is that the major advances in the Green revolution was by good old fashion selective cross breeding by (mostly american) scientists to increase wheat, rice and corn production, and developed new strains that changed India from the famine capital or the world to a large net food exporter.

  • by Rhacman ( 1528815 ) on Friday January 03, 2014 @08:51PM (#45862331)
    Nobody needs to kill themselves to control population, just not reproduce so much. You first? Sure. Who's next?

    Many developed countries already have low or declining population growth so again; us first? Working on it. Who's next? []
  • FUD... (Score:5, Informative)

    by bayankaran ( 446245 ) on Saturday January 04, 2014 @12:07AM (#45863163) Homepage

    Quite contrarily, GMO seeds have been repeatedly used for market domination through legislative bullying, most infamously ending in the suicide of farmers in india due to non-affordable seed prices after Monsanto cleared the market from other companies by undercutting and legal bullying before rising the cost.

    I have been following farmer suicides in India for a long time. The reasons are complex. They include crop failure at an inopportune time, non-seasonal and extended droughts, and inability to pay debts from unscrupulous moneylenders and so on. Monsanto or its pricey or unaffordable seeds directly causing a farmer to suicide - you might be able to find one or two examples, but that's not the norm.
    Monsanto is famous (or infamous) in India for their GMO Bt Cotton []. But Bt Cotton is only cultivated in the state of Maharashtra...suicides happen in many other states too. And given the options for cotton seeds, BT Cotton may not be that bad an idea.
    I agree Monsanto is borderline evil and creepy. There are valid reasons to argue genetically modified crops are a bad idea (or a good idea), but you should not add Indian farmer suicides to make a point. That's FUD.

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do the work. -- John G. Pollard