WebProNews

Tag: GMO

  • Neil Young Calls for Starbucks Boycott Over GMO Lawsuit

    Neil Young Calls for Starbucks Boycott Over GMO Lawsuit

    Neil Young is protesting Starbucks. And when Neil Young protests something, people notice — for better or for worse.

    When the National Guard rolled in to Kent State back in the 60s and left four students dead in their wake, the country was shocked. Crosby, Still, Nash, and Young had just completed an album and it was in pressings. But something had to be said. Neil Young was the man to bang that song out. The band recorded it hastily, put it on 45s, and got it to radio stations ahead of their album.

    “Ten soldiers and Nixon’s comin’
    We’re finally on our own
    This summer I hear the drummin’
    Four dead in Ohio”
    (from “Ohio” by CSNY)

    Neil Young, who had already done “For What It’s Worth,” a classic Vietnam protest song with Buffalo Springfield, has a hallowed place in protest music.

    Young is Canadian by birth, but now lives in San Mateo, California, so some Americans take issue with him commenting on their … issues. Ronnie Van Zant of Lynyrd Skynyrd was probably the biggest. When Neil Young released tracks like “Alabama” and “Southern Man”, both of which were aimed at the intolerance and racism in the American South, Van Zant told Young to stick it.

    “I hear Mr. Young sing about her
    I heard ol’ Neil put her down
    I hope Neil Young will remember
    A Southern Man don’t need him around, anyhow”
    (from “Sweet Home Alabama”)

    Now Neil Young is taking on something a little closer to Canada: Starbucks.

    “I used to line up and get my latte everyday,” Young wrote on his website, “but yesterday was my last one.”

    What has miffed Young at Starbucks? Starbucks is part of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which is joining with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont to prevent a requirement for genetically-modified ingredients in food to be identified on the label.

    Young’s statement continued.

    “Tell Starbucks to withdraw support for the lawsuit — we have a right to know what we put in our mouths. Starbucks doesn’t think you have the right to know what’s in your coffee. So it’s teamed up with Monsanto to sue the small U.S. state of Vermont to stop you from finding out.

    Hiding behind the shadowy “Grocery Manufacturers Association,” Starbucks is supporting a lawsuit that’s aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically-modified ingredients be labeled. Amazingly, it claims that the law is an assault on corporations’ right to free speech.

    Monsanto might not care what we think — but as a public-facing company, Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then pressure other companies to do the same.”

    Young believes that bringing a company like Starbucks to heel can eventually wear down the support for stopping the GMO law in Vermont. And if that happens, the possibility that such a labeling revolution could catch on is well worth losing lattes.

    “There’s much more at stake here than just whether GMO foods will be labeled in a single U.S. state. Vermont is the very first state in the U.S. to require labeling. Dozens of other states have said that they will follow this path — in order to encourage this, we need to ensure that Vermont’s law stands strong.”

    The Grocery Manufacturers Association is clear about their support of GMOs.

    “The use of genetically modified (GM) ingredients is not only safe for people and our planet, but also has a number of important benefits… GM technology adds desirable traits from nature, without introducing anything unnatural or using chemicals, so that food is more plentiful.”

    The group insists that people already eat lots of genetically-modified foods every day, and that these are proven to be safe by “the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the National Academy of Sciences.”

    But other groups insist that there are many health risks to GMOs that government agencies like the ones the GMA listed ignore. They say that these GMO foods may not cause acute poisoning, which would bring them under suspicion from the FDA and other agencies, but that they cause systemic damage over time, making people sick and weak.

    People like Neil Young realize that they cannot stop GMOs from being used in food. They just want them to be required to be named on the label so consumers can make their own choices about what they put in their bodies.

    But the GMA and Starbucks don’t want that. So Neil Young is calling on everyone to put a dent in Starbucks’ bottom line to make then see the error of their ways.

    Now let’s see if any Starbucks swilling Southerners want to step up and tell Young to step off.

  • CheeriosTo Become GMO-Free, A Big Business Decision For General Mills

    With all of the controversy surrounding GMOs and the way they are used in food, some companies are starting to take notice, and are altering their products as a result, which should be able to help their business.

    People all over the country have been working to get foods labeled that contain GMO ingredients, and eventually be able to have them removed. In a movement that keeps growing, it is likely to be something that will be beneficial to both the business owner and the consumer.

    Any company that is willing to alter their products to please those consumers are likely to have better business, and gain more customers of the product. There is no assurance that removing the genetically modified ingredients will be a solution, but General Mills has also struggled over the past year, and sales of Cheerios dropped about 7 percent.

    In case anyone has yet to encounter the term, GMOs are plants or animals that have undergone a process wherein scientists alter their genes with DNA from different species of living organisms, bacteria, or viruses to get desired traits such as resistance to disease or tolerance of pesticides.

    As a business, General Mills felt that eliminating genetically modified ingredients from their product would be beneficial to the consumer. In their announcement to the public, the company said “Why change anything at all? It’s simple. We did it because we think consumers may embrace it.”

    They also went on to say in a closing statement, “So take heart Cheerios lovers! Cheerios isn’t changing. It’s still the One and Only.” Cheerios will still be the product that everyone loves, and while it has always been made from whole-grain oats that are not genetically modified, they use a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar for taste.

    As Mike Siemienas, the spokesman for General Mills, said “For other cereals, the widespread use of GM seed for corn, soy, and beet sugar make moving to non-GMO ingredients difficult, if not impossible.”

    However, the short ingredient list for Cheerios that only includes whole grain oats, corn starch, sugar, salt, tripotassium phosphate, wheat starch, and vitamins and minerals is what made it such an easy task for General Mills.

    According to Mother Jones, GMOs are present in 60 to 70 percent of foods on US supermarket shelves, and the most common products to contain GMO ingredients are corn, sugar beets, soybeans, canola, and cottonseed.

    As of recently, Cheerios will only be using corn starch that comes from non-GMO corn and the sugar is only non-GMO pure cane sugar.

    In a smart business decision, General Mills has decided to cater to the many customers who have been demanding that the public have the right to know what is in their food, and not be subjected to eat products that have been genetically modified.

    Image via Facebook

  • Ben & Jerry’s to go 100% Non-GMO Ingredients in 2013

    Ben & Jerry’s to go 100% Non-GMO Ingredients in 2013

    Ben & Jerry’s has always been a progressive company. In addition to, until recently, heavily limiting executive pay, and publicly supporting the gay marriage equality movement, the Burlington, Vermont ice cream company has a social mission statement that includes “initiating innovative way to improve the quality of life locally, nationally, and internationally. Now, Ben & Jerry’s has jumped on the non-GMO bandwagon.

    Ben & Jerry’s recently announced that it will source ingredients for all of its products from non-genetically modified sources by the end of 2013. The company currently sources 80% of its ingredients (by volume) in Canada and the U.S. from non-GMO sources. It claims that all of its products in Europe are already GMO-free.

    Ben & Jerry’s has stated that its move to non-GMO ingredients was made to support smaller, sustainable, farming operations. The company is also supporting the movement for mandatory labeling of GMO foods. From a recent company blog post:

    Now, we aren’t scientists, we make ice cream, but we do know there are questions about whether GMO technology is truly living up to its promise of making bigger and better food, or whether it’s just simply another way to further industrialize and consolidate our food and agriculture system. Because Ben & Jerry’s has a long history of supporting family owned farms, we’re concerned that increasing GMO crops comes at the expense of smaller farms, which we believe is a more sustainable kind of farming.