Labeling at Whole Foods Market: Good for Business, Bad for Science

Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFM  ) is pouring a tremendous amount of effort into a store-wide labeling initiative seeking to notify consumers which products contain ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, by 2018. The move will be great for building out the company's loyal customer base and securing the trust of its growing following. When coupled with the internal goal of boosting U.S. store count by 20%, it also creates a growth opportunity for organic brands from General Mills (NYSE: GIS  ) and smaller producers.

WFM Total Return Price Chart

WFM Total Return Price data by YCharts.

But when it comes to public opinion concerning science, the company's labeling policy is appalling. It may be unintentional, but Whole Foods Market is fostering mistrust in science without adding any value to the conversation about the potential health risks associated with consuming GMO foods. Caving to consumer emotion -- rather than making evidence-based decisions -- sends a powerful message against science, specifically biotechnology (one of the most important facets of the 21st-century economy). It could also have harmful consequences for the national economy and the adoption of healthier, more environmentally friendly products by consumer giants such as McDonald's (NYSE: MCD  ) .

The customer is always* right
Unfortunately, consumers who tout health risks associated with GMO foods or ingredients are wrong -- as countless scientific studies from independent researchers around the globe have concluded. Consider that engineered crops have been sold commercially since 1996 with millions, perhaps billions, of humans consuming engineered foods since. Given the track record of biotech crops and the numerous dead ends in the search for potential risks, an overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees no reason to be concerned.

Consumers and Whole Foods Market should therefore consider what spreading fear and misinformation means from an economic standpoint. The three major biotech industries -- industrial biotech, biopharmaceuticals, and biotech crops -- that make up the American bioeconomy generated $350 billion in 2012, which represented 2.5% of GDP, according to noted entrepreneur and author Dr. Rob Carlson.

Source: Dr. Rob Carlson, U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis.  

Adding $350 billion to the national economy may not seem like much, but the bioeconomy as a whole is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 10%-15% for the next five years. By comparison, organic food and product sales totaled just $30.2 billion in 2012, while the most optimistic estimates call for the nation's economy to grow at a 3% clip.  

While the importance of the bioeconomy is evident, the potential of Whole Foods Market's labeling initiative to negatively shape public opinion of science and biotechnology is not. Can it really have an impact?

Egregious policy for science
Public opinion about science's ability to improve the world is critically important for the adoption of new products, especially those stemming from biotechnology. Several of the first GMO foods, such as NewLeaf potatoes in 1998, were doomed by consumer outcry. Ditto for the early days of stem-cell advances, which first pursued embryonic cells before scientists discovered less controversial sources.

While biotech crops are well-established in the domestic food supply, new products are not fully insulated from consumer opinion. Consumer groups are already mobilizing against the possible use of Innate potatoes at McDonald's. The next-generation potatoes come with less black spots and produce less asparagine, which make them more environmentally friendly (less waste) and healthier (less carcinogenic compounds formed during frying) than their nonengineered counterparts. Nonetheless, people are opposed to the idea of tweaking natural products outside of traditional breeding techniques.

An Australian study (link opens pdf) that surveyed consumer attitudes toward biotechnology in late 2012 summarized its importance:

Community attitudes are crucial to the development of the Australian biotechnology sector. If Australians are not in favour of certain technological applications, efforts by scientists on R&D will be constricted. In addition, public attitudes help shape the regulatory framework and the degree of industry uptake. If community attitudes are assumed not measured, a host of potential benefits in fields ranging from medicine to food to textiles are likely to be lost, representing a lost opportunity for individuals, industry and the nation in general.

Cross out "Australia" and insert "America" -- or any country -- to get the same effect. Unfortunately, I fear that Whole Foods Market's new labeling policy will fan the flames of the GMO debate by adding an air of credibility to misinformed and factually incorrect arguments against biotech crops. Consumers can look for foods and products that contain the U.S. Department of Agriculture organic seal if they want to avoid using GMO products. Requiring suppliers to label products as GMO seems like more of a publicity stunt than a consumer necessity to me.

On the other hand, it seems to be an excellent move for investors and the organic food industry.

Brilliant policy for organic foods
Whole Foods Market is simultaneously positioning itself for growth and as a consumer hero by instituting mandatory labeling of all products that contain ingredients from GMOs sold in its stores. That will further cement the loyalty of its customer base, attract others who oppose the use of biotech crops, and catalyze sales of the company's organic brand 365.

It should also create growth opportunities for suppliers that wield organic brands of their own, such as Cascadian Farms from General Mills and Horizon from WhiteWave Foods. The effects may be even more profound for smaller suppliers looking to gain national exposure, including several of the smaller yogurt brands catapulted to the forefront after Whole Foods recent ouster of Chobani. Whatever the effect, revenue at Whole Foods Market should continue to track the overall growth in organic food.

It's probably no coincidence that the company's total revenue and sales of organic food in the United States have both grown 43% since 2009 -- and the labeling initiative will likely result in the continuance of that trend.

Foolish takeaway
There is nothing wrong with deciding to eat organic food or to invest in the industry. But it is wrong to spread fear or misinformation about phantom health risks associated with GMO foods or ingredients when no credible links have been found. Unfortunately, Whole Foods Market has decided to side with consumers while overlooking the potential longer-term consequences. As the national and global bioeconomy grows, so will the importance of public opinion toward biotechnology. Perhaps consumers won't be as opposed to nonfood applications of biotechnology that contribute to the bioeconomy, considering the special relationship we have with food. Then again, why take the chance with poor policy?

Label your portfolio a winner
Perhaps you already own Whole Foods and you're looking for another great growth opportunity. Good news; our chief technology officer believes he's found one great growth stock. In this free report, Jeremy Phillips shares the single company that he believes could transform not only your portfolio, but your entire life. To learn the identity of this stock for free and see why Jeremy is putting more than $100,000 of his own money into it, all you have to do is click here now.

 


Read/Post Comments (30) | Recommend This Article (2)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On December 31, 2013, at 7:28 PM, lannit wrote:

    Frankly, Maxx Chatsko comes off as a GMO booster. Contrary to his assertions, the science is actually not clear on GMO safety, and a growing number of studies raise many concerns about GMOs such as Roundup contamination of Roundup Ready GMO crops. Furthermore there are several other serious issues surrounding GMO crops...such as extensive environmental contamination from Roundup, problems with increasing numbers of superweeds, and well-documented genetic contamination of non-GMO crops.

    A growing proportion of American consumers who shop for food (mostly women) are now aware that GMO labeling is required by over 60 countries but not in the U.S. They know that Cheerios sold in Europe don't contain GMO ingredients but Cheerios sold in the U.S. do...and they wonder why...

    Consequently, American consumers are increasingly adopting the European "precautionary principle", that requires GMO foods to be proven safe for human consumption prior to entering the food chain unlabeled. If the safety isn't proven, consumers won't buy these food products.

    As a result, consumer purchases labeled "organic" and "Non-GMO Verified" are growing annually at 12-14%. At this rate, by 2017, 30% of ALL the food purchased by American will be non-GMO, and this is without GMO labeling. With GMO labeling, the percentage is estimated to be 40% or more.

    This isn't about consumers being anti-science...it's about scientific evidence that suggests that pro-GMO industry science isn't trustworthy. And it's about how consumer decisions are shaping market forces. Doubt this? Check the sales declines for Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Kellogg's and General Mills, food companies that extensively use GMO ingredients in their food products.

    My guess is that Maxx Chatsko isn't the person who shops for his household...if he did, he'd be better informed about this issue.

  • Report this Comment On December 31, 2013, at 8:39 PM, ligett wrote:

    So being pro-information or pro-knowledge is identical to being anti-science????

    What an odd conclusion.

    Wait -- it wasn't the conclusion -- it was the assumption underlying the article.

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 3:07 AM, bmg616 wrote:

    You have only to look at the health of this nation to understand the pitfalls of science. Since 1998 there has been a 276% rise in allergies in children. Diabetes and obesity have flourished. Our food system and the science behind it are flawed and no amount of technology will correct this. Cheap food is not always good food. We do not have to feed the world but feed ourselves in a healthy manner. Let go of GDP and find nutrition.

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 8:56 AM, djb377 wrote:

    This article is nothing more than pure pro GMO propoganda. Frankly it's insulting. Let me guess, a Monsanto shareholder?

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 8:59 AM, djb377 wrote:

    Hahaha I was right. This came straight out of the authors bio:

    "While I like to concentrate my investing efforts in companies that are contributing to the bioeconomy -- industrial biotech, biotech crops, biopharmaceuticals -- I'm open to any growth opportunity that emerges."

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 10:00 AM, jackieg wrote:

    This isn't about science or whether or not you approve of GM foods. By refusing to label GM foods, our government is issuing a mandate that Americans have to eat GM foods whether they want to or not. We have a right to know what we are eating and make informed choices. I have written to my Federal and State representatives on this subject and, with the exception of one Senator, received responses that looked like Monsanto press releases. This is about so much more than science; it reflects the overwhelming influences corporations have on our political process.

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 10:44 AM, detta21 wrote:

    I do not know where to begin to discredit this article. First and foremost, the scientific studies that are referenced have been funded by Monsanto and any non-biased study has felt such pressure that investigators decide to withhold the results. Secondly, there are other indicators that point to our food source as being tainted such as a sharp rise in autoimmune disorders (I know and have one), autism, allergies, etc. Lastly, since this is about money, let me also point to the fact that 40% of our food produced is put in the trash every day. We don't need to produced more weed and pest resistant food, we need to be better stewards of the food we can produce without Roundup. Does this author know that the FDA is made up of former Monsanto executives? The GMO labeling effort is being led by people like me who do NOT want to eat genetically modified food and want to know what they are eating. I have a right to know what I put in my body! Thank God for Whole Foods who stick to their mission in providing the marketplace organic, labeled food such that consumers like me can know what they're buying. Lastly, our country was built on people like me who lead grassroots efforts when the science, data, etc. are lacking or lagging. This is the second Motley Foolish article I've read about labeling, but since all you care about is money, consider the source.

  • Report this Comment On January 01, 2014, at 12:29 PM, Worldpeacemom wrote:

    It amazes me how some "journalists" believe that we are still living those times when main stream media was able to easily manipulate the people. We, the people, the parents, the educators, are no longer receiving information and accepting its contains. We investigate, research, blog, chat, share views with other people, parents, educators. We can tell when you're lying, when you're writing on behalf of your own interests. So keep your fake facts to yourself, because that gmo crap is not making it to my home!!

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 3:32 AM, bbjonesinn wrote:

    I agree with an earlier comment. Pro-information is no way associated with anti-science.

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 9:26 AM, pjbthree wrote:

    Whole Foods should not stop here. It should also adopt labeling policies that expose the lies told by the scientific community about global warming, evolution and the round earth

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 10:41 AM, didilucy wrote:

    This writer must be either an employee of monsanto or being paid to write this. He states "Unfortunately, consumers who tout health risks associated with GMO foods or ingredients are wrong -- as countless scientific studies from independent researchers around the globe have concluded. Consider that engineered crops have been sold commercially since 1996 with millions, perhaps billions, of humans consuming engineered foods since. Given the track record of biotech crops and the numerous dead ends in the search for potential risks, an overwhelming majority of the scientific community sees no reason to be concerned." Let's talk about the health risks that have infiltrated our population since Monsanto introduced GMO's in 1996, 1 in 7 children are born with food allergies, 1 in 156 children have some form of autism up from 1 in 10,000 a decade ago, the spike in obesity, diabetes, and most importantly, MENTAL ILLNESS. More children are on some type of anti-depressant, anxiety med and in the last decade we have had young men in their teens and early twenties walking into schools, malls, universities, movie theaters and opening fire. THIS IS THE GENERATION being raised on GMO's. Coincidence? I don't think so.

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 12:51 PM, nosno wrote:

    Wish the antivaxxers would go back to playing in their sandpile, leave the rest of us alone...........

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 6:39 PM, worldly wrote:

    One can't talk about the safety of GMOs without talking about pesticides and there are many, many peer reviewed articles about the health problems from RoundUp. In essence, GMOs are just a delivery vehicle for RoundUp. The pesticide's application has gone up significantly in recent years and that is bad for all species, not just humans.

    In the long run, GMOs threaten our food supply because if there is crossover, and there has been and will continue to be (Mother Nature knows no boundaries) we risk the diversity of crops and that puts us all at great risk. Plus, the crossover issue threatens individuals' right to farm how they want because once contamination happens, there's no going back.

    I will buy Whole Foods stock just to support what they are doing.

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 6:52 PM, worldly wrote:

    You all might be interested in this article:

    Wall Street's Leading Indicator: A Non GMO Burrito

    http://www.robynobrien.com/_blog/Inspiring_Ideas/post/wall-s...

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:03 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @jackieg

    "By refusing to label GM foods, our government is issuing a mandate that Americans have to eat GM foods whether they want to or not."

    The USDA approved the organic seal over one decade ago and has regulated its use ever since. That is a label for non-GMO foods that gives consumers plenty of purchasing choices.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:06 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @worldly,

    You're associating GMO crops with Roundup, but Roundup Ready crops represent an sliver of total biotech crop plantings. Not all GMO crops contain a pesticide.

    In fact, global pesticide use has fallen dramatically since the introduction of Bt crop varieties. Consider that from 1996 to 2011, global consumption of pesticides fell 9% while Bt cotton and Bt corn alone saved farmers $57 billion in pesticide costs.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:09 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @lannit,

    "They know that Cheerios sold in Europe don't contain GMO ingredients but Cheerios sold in the U.S. do...and they wonder why..."

    No:

    http://cheerios.com/en/Articles/cheerios-and-gmos

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:11 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @djb377,

    "Let me guess, a Monsanto shareholder? Hahaha I was right."

    You can view my personal portfolio to see that I do not own shares of Monsanto. It's part of The Motley Fool's disclosure policy:

    http://www.fool.com/Legal/fool-disclosure-policy.aspx

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:14 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @didilucy,

    Your statistics about health problems in children are wildly inaccurate. Here are official autism statistics from the Centers for Disease Control (you actually undershot by a factor of two):

    http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/facts.html

    Nonetheless, there is no link between GMO food consumption and any disease -- in children or otherwise.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 02, 2014, at 7:44 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    The link to Dr. Rob Carlson's bioeconomy estimates and a more comprehensive analysis:

    http://www.synthesis.cc/2014/01/the-us-bioeconomy-in-2012.ht...

    Biotech crop sales estimated to have reached $125 billion in 2012.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2014, at 12:36 PM, swedenclunk wrote:
  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2014, at 12:50 PM, MelissainVA wrote:

    What a load of crap and big agra-biz propaganda!

    Regardless of what you think you know about GMO products, what about fostering our basic right to know and to choose what we do and do not ingest?

    Labeling of food stuffs is already the law. It was established long ago that we have a right to know what is in the food we buy. We just need to make sure that it applies to everyone, even Monsanto and their peers.

    Right on Whole Foods! Keep it up!

  • Report this Comment On January 03, 2014, at 12:55 PM, MelissainVA wrote:

    Do you have similar stats on what "spreading fear around smoking" did to the economy of places like Virginia? It wasn't pretty. AND it was absolutely the right thing to do.

  • Report this Comment On January 07, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Jon0617 wrote:

    Not a single one of you eats non-GMO foods, and none of your food dealers offers it. All of your organic and certified non-GMO food is the product of hundreds, often thousands of years of genetic manipulation by human beings. Only the method is changing. "[G]enetic contamination"? That's called "cross-pollination", and it's been practiced by the plants themselves, bees, and myriad other organisms since before humans existed.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:13 AM, alexrey wrote:

    This fool site is aptly named- its all about big money- the writer of this article has no idea about agent orange, the dumping of pcb in ground water or anything else. But not to worry, anyone on here who writes articles like this will soon see all their "work" disappear, and Monsanto is about to face something they never expected very shortly ;) and they wont recover, you can count on it. There is a big difference between real science and science corrupted by big money- as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry are now learning :)

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:17 AM, alexrey wrote:

    Alex Reynolds http://​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/​articles/PMC2952409/

    Abstract

    We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for the main commercialized edible GMOs. These GMOs are soy, maize and oilseed rape designed to contain new pesticide residues since they have been modified to be herbicide-tolerant (mostly to Roundup) or to produce mutated Bt toxins. The debated alimentary chronic risks may come from unpredictable insertional mutagenesis effects, metabolic effects, or from the new pesticide residues. The most detailed regulatory tests on the GMOs are three-month long feeding trials of laboratory rats, which are biochemically assessed. The tests are not compulsory, and are not independently conducted. The test data and the corresponding results are kept in secret by the companies. Our previous analyses of regulatory raw data at these levels, taking the representative examples of three GM maize NK 603, MON 810, and MON 863 led us to conclude that hepatorenal toxicities were possible, and that longer testing was necessary. Our study was criticized by the company developing the GMOs in question and the regulatory bodies, mainly on the divergent biological interpretations of statistically significant biochemical and physiological effects. We present the scientific reasons for the crucially different biological interpretations and also highlight the shortcomings in the experimental protocols designed by the company. The debate implies an enormous responsibility towards public health and is essential due to nonexistent traceability or epidemiological studies in the GMO-producing countries.

    Keywords: GMOs, Health risks, Pesticides, Regulatory toxicology, Animal testsDebate on GMOs Health Risks after Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

    We summarize the major points of international debate on health risk studies for...See More

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:19 AM, alexrey wrote:

    http://​www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/​pubmed/17356802

    Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2007 May;52(4):596-602. Epub 2007 Mar 13.

    New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity.

    Séralini GE, Cellier D, de Vendomois JS.

    Source

    Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGEN, Paris, France. criigen@unicaen.fr

    Abstract

    Health risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cultivated for food or feed is under debate throughout the world, and very little data have been published on mid- or long-term toxicological studies with mammals. One of these studies performed under the responsibility of Monsanto Company with a transgenic corn MON863 has been subjected to questions from regulatory reviewers in Europe, where it was finally approved in 2005. This necessitated a new assessment of kidney pathological findings, and the results remained controversial. An Appeal Court action in Germany (Münster) allowed public access in June 2005 to all the crude data from this 90-day rat-feeding study. We independently re-analyzed these data. Appropriate statistics were added, such as a multivariate analysis of the growth curves, and for biochemical parameters comparisons between GMO-treated rats and the controls fed with an equivalent normal diet, and separately with six reference diets with different compositions. We observed that after the consumption of MON863, rats showed slight but dose-related significant variations in growth for both sexes, resulting in 3.3% decrease in weight for males and 3.7% increase for females. Chemistry measurements reveal signs of hepatorenal toxicity, marked also by differential sensitivities in males and females. Triglycerides increased by 24-40% in females (either at week 14, dose 11% or at week 5, dose 33%, respectively); urine phosphorus and sodium excretions diminished in males by 31-35% (week 14, dose 33%) for the most important results significantly linked to the treatment in comparison to seven diets tested. Longer experiments are essential in order to indicate the real nature and extent of the possible pathology; with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product.

    PMID:

    17356802

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:20 AM, alexrey wrote:

    GMOs should be safety tested - AMA

    Thursday, 21 June 2012 12:07

    NOTE: U.S. regulators rely almost exclusively on information provided by GM crop developers like Monsanto on an entirely voluntary basis, and those data are not normally published in journals or subjected to peer review. This is why many critics regard U.S. regulation of GM foods as a rubber-stamp approval process that does nothing to ensure the safety of GM foods.

    The American Medical Association's stance echoes what the British medical journal The Lancet said in an editorial more than a decade ago, "Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."

    http://bangmfood.org/quotes/24-quotes/29-regulatory-breakdow...

    ---

    ---

    GMOs should be safety tested before they hit the market says AMA

    Monica Eng

    Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/food/stew/chi-gmos-sh...

    The American Medical Association called for mandatory pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods as part of a revised policy voted on at the AMA's meeting in Chicago Tuesday.

    Currently biotech companies are simply encouraged to engage in a voluntary safety consultation with the Food and Drug Administration before releasing a product onto the market.

    Some activists concerned about foods made with genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, had hoped the association would have gone so far as to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. But some still view the policy change as a major breakthrough.

    "We applaud the AMA for taking the lead to help ensure a safe and adequate food supply," said Anne Dietrich of the Truth In Labeling Campaign, which advocates labeling of genetically engineered foods. When Monsanto Co., the world's largest biotech seed company, testified Sunday at the AMA committee hearing on the policy, its representative did not raise any objections to the mandatory safety assessment provision.

    On Tuesday, however, Monsanto spokesman Tom Helscher would not say whether or not the company supports mandatory pre-market testing, only that the current voluntary consultation process "is working," he wrote to the Tribune. "All of Monsanto's biotech products, and to our knowledge all those of other companies, go through the FDA consultation process, which provides a stringent safety assessment of biotech crops before they are placed on the market."

    The AMA's Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

    Just now!

    The AMA's Dr. Patrice Harris said the testing provision was aimed at addressing public interests and ensuring public health.

    "Recognizing the public's interest in the safety of bioengineered foods, the new policy also supports mandatory FDA pre-market systemic safety assessments of these foods as a preventive measure to ensure the health of the public," Harris said in a statement. "We also urge the FDA to remain alert to new data on the health consequences of bioengineered foods."

    Tuesday afternoon FDA officials would not say whether the department supported mandatory testing. "New foods have an obligation under the Federal Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act to ensure that the foods they offer consumers are safe and in compliance with applicable legal requirements," the agency said. "In meeting their legal obligation, firms do conduct premarket safety testing."

    The agency was referring to testing manufacturers commission for their own use. Critics, however, argue that independent testing overseen by regulatory authorities often produces different results than testing paid for by the manufacturer.

    After the policy was announced Tuesday, Consumers Union senior scientist Michael Hansen released a statement saying: "We wholeheartedly commend AMA for coming out in support of mandatory pre-market safety assessment of (genetically engineered) foods, but are disappointed that AMA did not also support mandatory labeling. ... Studies in the scientific literature have suggested that genetic engineering could introduce new food allergens, increase the levels of known allergens, raise or lower nutrient levels and have adverse effects on the animals that eat such foods."

    Just Label It, the national campaign for the labeling of genetically engineered foods (www.justlabelit.org), issued a statement saying "just the fact that the AMA even considered this measure is a significant win for the vast majority (91%) of Americans (see the Mellman Poll findings) who believe they have the right to know about the foods they eat and feed their families -- a fundamental right already enjoyed by citizens in more than 50 countries worldwide, including all of Europe, Japan, Russia and China."

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 10:37 AM, alexrey wrote:

    This fool site is aptly named- its all about big money- the writer of this article has no idea about agent orange, the dumping of pcb in ground water or anything else. But not to worry, anyone on here who writes articles like this will soon see all their "work" disappear, and Monsanto is about to face something they never expected very shortly ;) and they wont recover, you can count on it. There is a big difference between real science and science corrupted by big money- as the tobacco and pharmaceutical industry are now learning :)

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 10:54 AM, alexrey wrote:

    and here's the ironic thing- the pharmaceutical industry is just as bad- thats why we have class action lawsuits going AGAINST vioxx, celebrex, avandia and topamax, as well as antidepressants, because research studies were doctored and the fda got money on the backend from the pharma industry- to the point of where doctors themselves are revolting against the drug industry for all their false advertizing on tv and creation of fake ailments to make a larger market for their products, this has NOTHING to do with science and everything to do with business- just like the tobacco industry.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2780221, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/30/2014 6:16:31 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement