"No GMO" is now officially an advertising gimmick...

[Archae]

Saw it today, in the frozen dinners, the "Lean Cuisine"

"Now with organic ingredients"
https://www.leancuisine.com/

And the price has gone through the roof.
Just like I said about organic food.
Just a giimmick to jack up prices.

[jeff47]

1. GMO free salt

http://www.amazon.com/Salt-Himalayan-Gourmet-Chemicals-Non-gmo/dp/B007PR93EU

[Archae]

3. I like the first comment at that listing...

Question:

Is it free from sodium chloride (or as I call it: "sod-em killide&quot ? And you're it came from a non-gmo salt tree that was organically farmed?

Answer:

Ben, yes. It's also free of NSA nanobots and government fluoride that will give you teh autizmz.

[uppityperson]

6. That is pretty funny, thank you.

[Rex]

23. Mmmm...2 pounds of Himalayan pink!

Oh it's salt...bummer...

[Shandris]

2. Wouldn't "It -becomes- an advertising gimmick" be more accurate?

Since it wouldn't be one when first introduced (unless astroturfed of course...God I hate the sleaziness of 'business' these days), wouldn't it become a gimmick instead?

I think you're right, that it has become one. I noticed just last night in the store some of the same things (not to mention the new 'Premium Milk market' -- the term makes me want to choke someone (not literally!)).

But really, if you're buying processed foods and expecting them to be 'organic', you probably haven't put too much thought into what organic really means. So I'm totally unsurprised that it becomes a gimmick.

[Major Nikon]

4. It's always been a gimmick

Someone figured out that there's an elitist segment of the market prone to pseudoscience, willing to pay a lot more for a product that has no guarantee of superior nutrition, health, safety, or sustainability.

Organic really means nothing. The standards are completely arbitrary. It doesn't even mean organic as lots of synthetic products are on the NOP approved list.

[KittyWampus]

13. Organic farmers fought, lobbied for and LOST the ability to define "organic" standards

They lost to the large corporate farmers determined to undermine the concept and reality.

So your post shows a total lack of understanding how organic labels came about and how stacked in the largest corporations favor the laws are.

[Archae]

14. Bingo. The only difference between organic and non-organic is the price.

And organic is always much higher.

I've seen organic produce being sold at 2, 3, even 4 or more times what non-organic is.

And now Lean Cuisine (which always was rather expensive,) is now jacking up their prices even higher just for sticking a new label on the boxes.

[KittyWampus]

19. Oh, bullshit. You are wrong. There are organic farmers. I've listed the benefits of organic farming

multiple times. It's been proven. Using mono-culture, petrochemical laden farming methods is categorically BAD for life on planet Earth.

The only reason 'mainstream' products are cheaper is because they are subsidized by government and because of of the control of the market the large corporations have.

Your OP's trying to "debunk" anything you don't like are so poorly informed it's pathetic.

[Major Nikon]

21. Rubbish

Organic standards originated with trade associations established by organic farmers. You would do better not to simply make things up and then pretend others have a "total lack of understanding", as such things generally lead to embarrassment when you are proven wrong.

http://www.ccof.org/ccof/history

[KittyWampus]

24. LOL! You just linked to some local agency in the state of California. Nice try.

Not the same.

I know someone whose job it was to Lobby Congress regarding Organic standards, although your obvious bias makes it seem unlikely you care about facts regarding this topic.

here are some relevant links:

http://consumersunion.org/news/u-s-department-of-agriculture-guts-national-organic-law/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203365.html

[Major Nikon]

25. So you actually think organic labels "came about" in 2009?

Right after you claim some kind of superior knowledge on the subject?


Here's what you ridiculously claimed:

"...your post shows a total lack of understanding how[sic] organic labels came about..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027242093#post13

The USDA organic seal "came about" in 2002. 7 years prior to the links you posted. Trade organizations were certifying products back in the 70's.

Your post shows a total lack of understanding of how organic labels came about.

[Skittles]

29. yes, and it is tiresome

people are so freaking gullible

[swilton]

5. All the more reason to learn to cook

and know where your food comes from - i.e., know your farmer and eat locally sources as opposed to globally sourced food.

[GreatGazoo]

7. Non-GMO and organic are two different things.

Also, apparently America's largest retailer didn't get the memo about "jacking up prices..through the roof" :

The world’s largest retailer Wal-Mart recently partnered with Wild Oats brand to sell organic foods at non-organic prices.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/04/14/wal-mart-strikes-a-deal-with-wild-oats-to-sell-cheaper-organic-foods/

Thirdly, many major food companies have turned down GMO ingredients quietly and with no change in pricing -- I can't see how THAT fits with your theory.

[Archae]

8. "Many?"

I see only one, McDonalds, and who the hell CARES if they go to McD's if the food is organic or not?

[Nye Bevan]

11. Well I for one insist that my fillet-o-fish be organic, non-GMO, and gluten-free.

But that's just me.

[jeff47]

10. Yes. That's why the pressure is on to create an official "Contains GMOs" label.

Because a "GMO-free" label would not let companies charge certified Organic prices for non-GMO food.

[nationalize the fed]

9. Was this an "advertising gimmick"?

"We'll let folks know whether their food has been genetically modified because Americans should know what they're buying" -Candidate/Senator Obama

How about this?

I Used to Work as a Scientist with GMOs—Now I'm Having Serious Second Thoughts About The Risks
http://www.alternet.org/food/i-used-work-scientist-gmos-now-im-having-serious-second-thoughts-about-risks

[pnwmom]

12. Which is why we need labeling of GMO ingredients, so people can make informed

decisions and not have to avoid all GMO's in order to avoid any.

[alp227]

15. whose definition of "GMO ingredients"?

Any scientifically ignorant Yahoo's?

This line of "informed decisions" to justify GMO labels are so annoying. All it is is pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[pnwmom]

22. No, and not corrupt food processors either, like Monsanto. By the FDA's definition. n/t

[Major Nikon]

27. Monsanto isn't a "food processor"

You aren't doing yourself any favors here.

[jeff47]

28. Why not a "GMO Free" label?

It could start like the process that lead to USDA Organic - initially a voluntary label by a third party that evolves into an official label. It could start right now.

Except the anti-GMO people aren't fighting for that. Instead, they're fighting a lengthy regulatory battle and battle to change the laws. Leaving consumers who want to avoid GMOs to purchase much more profitable organic products while a very, very, very long battle is fought.

"Big food" is not only on the GMO side.

[pnwmom]

30. The OP says such a label would be an advertising gimmick.

I"m not against all GMO's. With labeling I could avoid, for example, the ones that allow high amounts of Roundup to be used (that is absorbed by the plant and can't be washed off.)

[jeff47]

31. A label with no certification process certainly is.

Hence my link above to "GMO Free" salt.

But like the organic label, a certification entity can be set up to set the "rules", and then they hand out their own label. In the case of organic, that evolved into the government's label today.

With labeling I could avoid, for example, the ones that allow high amounts of Roundup to be used

Not if the label only says "Contains GMOs". You need a "RoundUp resistant" label, not a GMO label.

Also:

that is absorbed by the plant

Nope. At least, I'm presuming you mean "stored in the plant" and not just "absorbed". It's metabolized by the plant. It also breaks down naturally in about a week, and farmers are not allowed to spray it on their crops for a month or two before harvest.

and can't be washed off

Nope. Glyphosate is water-soluble. You don't even need a cleaner to wash it off.

[pnwmom]

32. Glyphosphate must be absorbed by the plant in order to work.

Washing it off will not remove what has been absorbed.

And residues can remain stable in foods for a year or more, even processed foods.

http://cals.arizona.edu/crops/pdfs/062512%20Maximizing%20the%20Use%20of%20Glyphosate.pdf

Glyphosate must be absorbed into the foliage to be translocated to the sites of action.

https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_4_human_contamination_glyphosate.pdf

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are applied in large amounts to both genetically modified
(GM) crops and non-GM crops. GM crops may receive two or three applications of
glyphosate in a season [1] while glyphosate-containing herbicides may be sprayed just
before harvest onto non-GM cereals, pulses, sunflowers and oilseed crops. This is done to
remove weeds and dry out the grains, a process called ‘dessication’ [2]. Glyphosate remains
largely unchanged in non-GM plants, but GM plants will convert glyphosate into aminomethyl
phosphonic acid (AMPA), N-acetyl-glyphosate or N-acetyl-AMPA, depending on the type of
genetic modification used [3]. When conducting risk assessments of residues in food, the
European Food Safety Authority views such breakdown products as equivalent to glyphosate
[4].
Once applied, glyphosate and its break down products are transported throughout the plant
into the leaves, grains or fruit [5]. They cannot be removed by washing, and they are not
broken down by cooking [6]. Glyphosate residues can remain stable in foods for a year or
more, even if the foods are frozen, dried or processed [7]. Some processing may even
concentrate the residues; for example, during production of wheat bran the glyphosate
residues may be concentrated by a factor of four [8].

[dixiegrrrrl]

16. Seeing "No GMO" advertised can be a good thing, I think.

It means the idea of GMOs is seen as negative to a lot of shoppers now., drives home the message on the shopper's mind of
"No GMOs" a dozen times while in the store.

[Archae]

18. Propaganda tends to do that.

"Vaccines cause autism!"

"Jews are in a plot to control the world!"

"Liberals are communists!"

"GMO food is poison/Monsatan/frankefoods!"

[alcibiades_mystery]

17. Wait, did the "Advertising Gimmick Council" *officially* label it?

[Archae]

20. You tell me.

http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_1724_21-absurd-lies-companies-have-used-to-sell-products/

[darkangel218]

26. Unrec. Nt.

[hobbit709]

33. Have you seen the "gluten free" 100% fruit juices?