By: Zy Marquiez
January 8, 2016
In a stunning development, Campbell Soup is breaking rank with all other companies which do not label genetically modified ingredients in their products.
Following the recent victory in Vermont that requires genetically modified organism [GMO] labeling within the state, the company has begun taking action towards this new reality.
Where all this could be headed, the following article below by the New York Times elucidates:
Most interesting shown within the article:
Campbell is also breaking with its peers by calling for federal action to make mandatory a uniform labeling system of foods that contain such ingredients, commonly known as G. M.O. labeling, said Denise Morrison, chief executive of Campbell.
Campbell is calling for mandatory labeling of products that use ingredients from G.M.O. crops. Credit Campbell Soup Company
“We’re optimistic that a federal solution can be reached in a reasonable amount of time, but if that’s not the case, we’re preparing to label all our products across the portfolio,” Ms. Morrison said in an interview.
She said about three-quarters of the company’s products contained ingredients derived from corn, canola, soybeans or sugar beets, the four largest genetically engineered crops. The change in labeling is expected to take 12 to 18 months.
The first example provided by the company, for a SpaghettiO’s label prepared for Vermont, is sparsely worded and does not specify which individual ingredients are genetically altered. It simply states at the bottom of the label: “Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit WhatsinMyFood.com.” [Bold and underline emphasis added].
Whilst the opening statement should send a shot across the entire corporate food sector, the main point should be that there is an incredible lack of specificity of GMO labeling for a company claiming it wants a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’.
What are we to take of this?
Is Campbell’s Soup attempting to make a politically corporately correct move by asking for what it knows is coming, but doing so in such a manner [keep in mind, they are not being specific about which items are being genetically modified] that ameliorates the amount of waves being caused by showing that they haven’t fully converted their products to precise GMO labels?
Another notable point of the article was put forth by Mr. Vilsack, who is the agriculture secretary. Please keep in mind, as Jon Rappoport of NoMoreFakenews.com has reported before, Tom Vilsack is one “of Monsanto’s most influential political allies in the world”:
“I’m going to challenge them to get this thing fixed,” Mr. Vilsack told The Register, adding that he was worried about “chaos in the market” if other states follow suit. “That will cost the industry a substantial amount of money, hundreds of millions of dollars, if not more, and it will ultimately end up costing the consumer,” he said.
The ultimate cost individuals eating GMOs would pay via their health, would be far more than what the financial increase to them will be. As penned by Christina Sarich, of NaturalSociety.com, this is a great reason why “over 60 countries have already passed mandatory GMO labeling laws”, with many countries such as Russia choosing an outright ban:
As Sarich implores trenchantly in the article:
“So are we really supposed to believe that genetically engineered crops are safe and that the average consumer in America who is practically begging for organic food is simply over-reacting, or are we to correctly assume that the United States has been bought by biotech?”
An excellent synopsis of the current issues regarding the abstruse, but rather overarching aspects of the GMO issues is covered by F. William Engdahl:
As stated by Engdahl:
The entire field of so-called biotechnology is corrupt and rotten to its very unscientific, reductivist core. That should not surprise as it was created deliberately by America’s leading eugenics family and funded by their Rockefeller Foundation to advance their mad eugenics agenda at the very same time the Rockefeller Foundation was funding the Nazi eugenics research at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin.
Within Engdahl’s analysis he also mentions what should be shocking to most, which is the fact that the Seralini study:
“was the first-ever long-term rat study documenting the effects of a GMO diet in the entire twenty years’ history of commercial GMO. The results were bone-chilling.” [Bold Emphasis added].
Couple this with what investigative reporter Jon Rappoport mentions in:
“The FDA is the criminal agency that allowed GMO crops through the door, to begin with, in 1996, by saying, based on zero research, that GMO and non-GMO crops were identical.”
Given the fact that Big Biotech has never really show any credible evidence of GMO safety in intergenerational studies, and more, should they even be trusted?
While the above news brought about by the NYT seems positive and ultimately, could be, we must remain concerned in the fact that there is still myriad issues not being addressed.
Why has Campbell Soup asked for a ‘mandatory uniform labeling system’ and then in the same breath, mention that they lack specificity in their products? It’s not like they didn’t know the labeling in Vermont was coming. If they were truly turning over a new leaf, those labels would be on the products already.
Detaching to gaze at the larger picture, why is Tom Vilsack even trusted as the secretary of agriculture, knowing he has extensive ties to Monsanto?
And finally, although over 92% of Americans polled are for GMO labeling, the better question is, why label the GMOs, when you can just ban them? Why allow ‘food’ that’s never been proven safe to be part of the food suply, especially when it has been supported by the surreptitious machinations of big biotech the whole way through?
One way or another, what Campbell Soup has carried out will show its true colors, sooner or later.
For the time being, be very skeptical, because for every new data point that arises, there are many that have are not being addressed except by a handful of people. And those questions, are ultimately where the darker side of GMOs lie.
Sources & References: