Do Whole Foods Customers Really Have the Right to Know About Monsanto Foods?

GMO-food protesters gather outside the International Monetary Fund. Source: Occupy Monsanto on Twitter.

Whole Foods Market (NASDAQ: WFM  ) has become a champion for the Right to Know movement, which aims to allow consumers to make better grocery purchasing decisions by calling for the labeling of all foods containing ingredients produced from genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. In fact, the supermarket chain has decided to implement mandatory labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients within the next few years. The policy certainly reverberates with the anti-GMO community that targets biotech seed and agricultural sciences firm Monsanto Company (NYSE: MON  ) , and it's a smart business decision, although I think it only works to foster consumer mistrust in science and biotechnology.

Nonetheless, did you know the Right to Know movement actually borrows its name from a series of laws enforced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency? Does that fact add any credibility to the movement? Let's explore just what it means and how it could affect Whole Foods Market and Monsanto.

The customer is always* right
According to the EPA website, "Every American has the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed in their daily living. Right-to-know laws provide information about possible chemical exposures." The laws cover chemicals stored, produced, and emitted by various facilities across the country, releases of toxic substances, air and water pollution, lead exposure, hazardous waste sites, and other important disclosures. Since genetically engineered crops produce food with the same nutritional properties as crops grown from traditional breeding methods, they are not classified any differently from traditional foods once they pass the gauntlet of regulatory tests examining their safety.

Still think transgenic crops pose a risk to human health or are any less safe than their conventional counterparts? A recent study (link opens PDF) found that a genetically modified corn variety, MON810, demonstrated protein variance of just 3.1% compared to related non-GM varieties grown under similar conditions. Since nearly 5% variance could be expected by random chance, the study suggests transgene crop varieties do not pose health risks on the merits of production methods (genetic modification vs. plant breeding) alone.

Of course, right-to-know laws also include the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which regulates pesticide residue levels in and on food. Despite popular belief and misinformation, not all biotech seeds are engineered to produce or resist a pesticide. There are numerous varieties that do, however, such as Monsanto's now-infamous Roundup Ready soybeans and corn. Shouldn't they be labeled?

Not quite. What anti-GMO activists tend to forget is that most crops, even those not genetically modified, are grown with pesticides. That's why the law was passed in the first place: to set acceptable pesticide residue thresholds for all foods. Therefore, production method -- foods grown organically, from genetically modified seeds, or 3-D printed -- is immaterial to the labeling debate until scientific evidence shows a real cause for concern.

What does it mean for Whole Foods Market and Monsanto?
While Whole Foods Market may believe its loyal and growing customer base is always right, the EPA has a different take. However, the fact that the GMO Right to Know movement won't be rescued by the agency's right-to-know laws likely won't affect the grocer, which will soon require labeling throughout its stores. That fact is also unlikely to improve the public image of Monsanto, which will continue to bear the brunt of activist consumers regardless of the amount of evidence provided. It may be an encouraging sign to shareholders, though, since labeling efforts will face huge obstacles in the justice system, but it doesn't guarantee the failure of labeling laws. For now, investors will just have to wait and see.

Tired of the bickering? Read about our top stock for 2014.
Are you fatigued by the debate over GMO foods and just want to get back to investing? Great, we can help. While there's a huge difference between a good stock and a stock that can make you rich, The Motley Fool's chief investment officer has selected his No. 1 stock for 2014 (and it's one of those stocks that could make you rich). You can find out which stock it is in the special free report "The Motley Fool's Top Stock for 2014." Just click here to access the report and find out the name of this under-the-radar company.

Read/Post Comments (42) | Recommend This Article (6)

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 February 02, 2014, at 2:32 PM, frellmedead wrote:

    Seems clear between this and another article that the Motley Fool has become the mouthpiece for the Monsanto Corporation.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 2:35 PM, speakonlytruth wrote:

    Monsanto and the U$ government have gone from poisoning Vietnam with dioxin (Agent Orange) to poisoning the world with Genetically Mangled Obscenities... had the appropriately named Motley FOOL been around in the 60's when the U$ was spraying millions of gallons of dioxin on Vietnam, you undoubtedly would have also believed Monsanto's and the U$ government's assurances it was safe... in Vietnam it was WAR CRIMES with Agent orange and now it's CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY with GMOs... google 'Agent Orange birth defects' for a lesson in Monsanto and U$ government 'assurances of safety'... how much do you have invested in Monsanto?

    you can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

    a fool and their poison are never separated...

    to believe the vacuous babbling of a fool makes you a fool...

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 2:47 PM, immoveable wrote:

    I, for one, will not eat "foods" that contain GMOs. There is ample evidence that GMO crops can be toxic for the individual and add to undermining the integrity of the environment through the unsustainable agricultural practices surrounding them. Labelling of GMOs is good. The author of this article needs to do some more homework.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 4:24 PM, Firnatine14 wrote:

    How many completely biased pro Monsanto propaganda pieces now has the Fool run? I have lost count. How much is Monsanto paying you? Real Journalism is dead in this country.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 4:44 PM, u4iadestiny wrote:

    Considering that Bt corn is patented as bacteria, not corn, it is still listed as corn when used as an ingredient in food. This is patently false. It is not corn - it is an entirely new species in the food chain. To pass it off as corn is a lie and an insult to the consuming public. There are perhaps a hundred other excellent reasons why the labeling of the food we consume is of vital importance to human beings. Yes, we have the right to know - that it is even being questioned is proof of how ethically low we have sunk.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 4:48 PM, BobinTexas wrote:

    Poor premise. The question is "Does a corporation have the right to hide the truth about the food they are selling to customers?" Nobody is asking them to release proprietary data; only label the original source of the food. People can then choose whether to eat GMO or not.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:05 PM, ligett wrote:

    Maxx firmly believes in your Right to NOT know.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:07 PM, geoman4919 wrote:

    The Mises institute has an article titled Monsantos Friends in High places, Food Scientists have fed GMO food to lab animals and the animals went sterile after three generations. This research can not be duplicated here because Monsanto destroys the career of anyone that questions their products. The scientists avoid career death by avoiding the topic.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:13 PM, speakonlytruth wrote:

    Do Whole Foods Customers Really Have the Right to Know About Monsanto Foods?

    the deranged answer by Maxx (another paid stooge of Monsanto) to the above question is equalled in its delusional logic only by the inanity of the question itself...

    how curious that John Mackey (Whole Foods CEO) is on the Motley Fool Board that allows such blathering prattle to be dispensed as 'investment advice' - i wonder if Mackey has stock in Monsanto...

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:23 PM, JRP wrote:

    Our public service FDA and Monsanto, took away our freedom of choice .What a democracy, when a government agency is not working or responding to the people it is suppose too represent.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:30 PM, klausmager wrote:

    Amazing to see this solidly coherent opinion expressed by members, clearly reflecting a vast majority of the general population. And still, the political process/players are firmly stemming against public sentiment, insisting on getting their way. Can we still call this a functioning democracy?

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:35 PM, csalerno wrote:

    Gee, thanks Maxx, there's five minutes I'll wont get back.

    What a waste of time your article was.

    I'll be directing the Motley Fool emails to my Junk Mail.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 5:41 PM, djb377 wrote:

    Dear Motley Fool. You pro GMO propaganda is irresponsible, disgustingly one-sided and making you look really bad as an authority for anything other than a lobbyist for monsanto. Please stop

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 7:41 PM, carmeno wrote:

    The question should be "should Monsanto have the right to NOT tell people what they are eating"? Every one should have the right to know what they are eating, after all they are the ones paying for the food and they should decided whether or not to buy it. If the stuff is so great, what is the problem? Monsanto doesn't take pride in what they create? And how are we supposed to believe they have nothing to hide when they are hiding what they make?

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 7:48 PM, Dumbluck wrote:

    Yeah this sort of reporting is offensive.

    I'm wildly against supporting any company that thinks it has a right to patent life.

    I'm wildly against any company that thinks it has a right to shut down farmers because their mutant crop invaded their fields.

    I'm wildly opposed to the idea that a genetic modification that allows a plant to survive the spraying of toxic poisons on it somehow makes the plant that endured that poison somehow safe to eat.

    The Fool is clearly being paid for this nonsense propaganda as no one in their right mind would think any of the claims made in the article even come close to addressing the concerns people have with GMO's in general and Monsanto specifically.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 8:43 PM, NotBought wrote:

    Since when has Motley become such a shill. Promulgating all the falsehoods spread by biotechs doesn't make those falshoods any more truthful. Seriously, like noting a "gauntlet of regulatory tests" when none of those test are independently done.

    Motley Fools, your name is quite apropos

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 9:17 PM, spintreebob wrote:

    Whole Foods customers have the right to vote with their feet in our democracy and shop somewhere else. That's the beauty of a democracy. We have an election eery day, not just in November.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 10:49 PM, Bil wrote:

    Now I know why they call them Motley Fools, must be the healthy GMO food they're ingesting.

  • Report this Comment On February 02, 2014, at 11:00 PM, pinecone wrote:

    If you don't understand the science of the issue, you shouldn't write about it. Depending on "other studies" does NOT make a case for anything....follow the money, who paid for the study....and you may have to go back quite a ways to see the TRUTH!

    There are NO studies longer than 3 mos. to prove whether or not GMO'd/GME'd crops/products are harmful to humans. At this point, NO ONE knows what all they may have caused....but more & more research is showing more & more problems with them!

    And that doesn't even touch on what all those chemicals are doing to our soils and our water!

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Comcastsucks wrote:

    I want nothing to do with Monsanto.

    No Frankenfood for my family.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 12:44 AM, Starlady99 wrote:

    Even if organic grown vegetables use pesticides, They are on the outside, very little would lead inside. These pesticides can mostly be washed off. GMO make the chemical part of the vegetable. There have been no long term studies on how GMO interact with the human body over long times. The fact that other nations are allowing GMO's into the country has more to do with bribes and greed by the governments.

    If we do not want to eat GMO than we should not be forced to. For those who have no problem with it then fine. The reason they want to ram GMO down our throats has to do with money pure and simple.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 1:59 AM, oneofthemasses wrote:

    Do Whole Foods Customers Really Have the Right to Know About Monsanto Foods? The proper reply is another question. Have you been living in a cave?

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 2:39 AM, Maximus555 wrote:

    I would want to know. I don't want my money going to anything related to Monsanto if I can help it and I don't want to consume anything they make.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 3:21 AM, daverhall wrote:

    Most federal agencies now are rubber stamps for big business. So their stamp of approval has no value whatsoever.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 6:35 AM, naturalkirk wrote:

    Here are some of the other articles from the author - what a coincidence, he is a GMO insider.

    • 3 Synthetic Biology Stocks That Can Help You grow in 2014 (and Beyond)

    • 3 High-Risk, High-Reward Biotech Stocks for Long Term Investors

    • 3 Innovative Biotech Stocks to Watch in 2014

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 7:05 AM, rwilliam03839 wrote:

    Hey MF stop with the Monsanto propaganda articles. Are you on their payroll or what?

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 8:05 AM, rejis456 wrote:

    I agree with the majority of posters here...Motley Fool is absolutely wrong about GMO foods. We deserve to know what we are eating.

    It does seem that you are benefitting financially as these kinds of articles are constant from the Motley Fool. My opinion of you as independent has decreased dramatically!

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 8:20 AM, falconjack wrote:

    Yes, we have the right to know about all chemicals, additives, etc. that are in all consumables. Maxx, wouldn't you like to know what it is that you're eating? How about your kids? Makes perfect sense to the rest of us. There have been no long term studies done by anyone and the only short term were done by Monsanto and guess what their findings were? And the FDA green lighted this and now the FDA is basically being run by an ex Monsanto V.P. Another blunder by our President who, when elected promised transparency about this issue. And it isn't just about direct GMO foods, its also all the by products that are ingredients in our food that come from GMOs. How bio magnification? Beef, dairy, pigs, chicken are all fed this corn and we consume them and their milk On top of that, beef and dairy cows can not digest corn, (they need grass) and are given hormone shots so that they can. Another unknown for us to eat. If Maxx and the Fools want to eat GMO laced food, that is your choice, but for the rest of us, it is getting harder for us to have a choice.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:11 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 9:20 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."



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

    Monica Eng

    Chicago Tribune, 20 June 2012

    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 (, 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 9:22 AM, alexrey wrote:

    Alex Reynolds http://​​articles/PMC2952409/


    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

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

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 9:22 AM, alexrey wrote:


    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.


    Committee for Independent Information and Research on Genetic Engineering CRIIGEN, Paris, France.


    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.



    [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 10:52 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.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 11:48 AM, todamo13 wrote:

    Great to see people standing up to this harmful nonsense! Great comments above. Gives me hope that more people are understanding what we are up against...

    Simple fact is that we can't ignore Monsanto, we have to fight back. It's already taken over so much of our food supply, and the situation is constantly getting worse.

    Want non-GMO seeds? They're pretty hard to find these days.

    Want to raise organic free-range chickens and eggs? Kinda hard to find non-GMO feed.

    Want to eat grass-fed beef that wasn't fed GMO alfalfa? Monsanto has poisoned the alfalfa too.

    Monsanto has back-doored our entire food system (not to mention bought off / corrupted the regulatory agencies that are supposed to be protecting us like USDA and FDA, heck even the US Supreme Court with Clarence Thomas).

    If we sit back and say "I'll buy organic, no GMOs for me" it's not enough. Before long there won't be any non-GMO or organic after Monsanto finishes monopolizing / contaminating our entire food system.

    We have to actually fight them and their destruction of our genetic heritage for profit!

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 12:07 PM, byteMeImblonde wrote:

    Oh no of course not!! Humans should be fed in the dark like mushrooms on faeces,,,yum, yum,,,,"Uh, is that a strawberry or a potato or your uncle's toe?"

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Jason1 wrote:

    The current food labels DO tell us what's in our food. Corn Oil is identical whether from GMO or from non-GMO corn. Sugar is identical whether from GMO or non-GMO sources. High Fructose Corn Syrup is identical whether from GMO or non-GMO sources. Corn Starch is identical whether from GMO or non-GMO corn. You get where I'm going with this. Our current ingredient label tells you what's in it.

    If your fear of GMO foods is so strong that you won't even accept products that no longer contain any of the original GMO proteins, then why don't you just look for the USDA Certified Organic label? That guarantees non-GMO sourced ingredients.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Chris11 wrote:

    Just like much of the current world, the article is backwards and should properly be titled, "Does Monsanto really have the right to NOT let us know what's in our food."

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 2:40 PM, catkin5977 wrote:

    What is fostering the consumer's mistrust in science and biotechnology is the actions of Monsanto and other corporations in manipulating data, surpressing studies that contracdict all the glowing reports Monsanto and other corporations come up with their manipulated data, the knowledge that Monsanto and other corporations have a revolving door with the very government entities that are meant to protect the consumer's who have mistrust in science and biotechnology. If Monsanto want's us to know that GMO's are fine, then lable them and let people compare what happens to them when they consume said foods compared to non-GMO foods. If science and biotechnology are so to be trusted then labeling won't hurt a damn thing! Stop acting like the consumer is a fool who can't be trusted to make an intelligent decision - decisions based on information not supression of information and letting the government and corporations says let us tell you what is good for you.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 3:12 PM, kjmax wrote:

    Of course EVERYONE has the right to know. And I will continue to shop at Whole Foods and love them for doing the right thing on labeling. Monsanto is freaking evil for Agent Orange, pcbs, dioxins, round-up and the fake sugar crap they are poisoning us with. It is virtually guaranteed that their GMO garbage is nothing but poison as well. This is so freaking obvious to anyone with any critical thinking skills.

  • Report this Comment On February 03, 2014, at 10:48 PM, sellcal wrote:

    What a disgusting garbage article. This Maxx guy is paid by Monsanto to put out such filth. This is what is wrong with reporting now-a-days. They only report what they are told to report instead of doing the research. Monsanto's Genetically Mutated Organisms are a direct threat to our DNA which (if you do your research MAXX CHATSKO) is our true spirit, our direct link to all other dimensions. GMOs are poison and it's sad that you are too afraid to report that. TRUTH!!

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2014, at 10:14 AM, greenverde wrote:

    Wow! I must tip my hat to the FOOLS community who so robustly have responded negatively to Maxx's article. This is the first time I have even looked at the comments section, always expecting it would reflect the powerfully undemocratic corporate reality we all live in. It appears many more people are waking up to the dangerous myth that everything will be fine if we put our lives in the hands of the powerful companies like Monsanto, who are benevolently looking out for all our common good. I now have new respect for many of my fellow FOOLS. It would be great to see Motley Fools take a more impassioned human values based position.

  • Report this Comment On February 04, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Bluebst wrote:

    It would seem that the majority of Maxx's and other rebuttals revolve around the fact that GMO foods are indistinguishable from 'organic' for lack of a better word. I think most who have even a passing knowledge of biology would concede the point.

    It seems to me that WHY products are genetically modified is the key point here i.e. I don't want to consume roundup (or any pesticide residue) as part of my healthy diet. That includes, corn, soy products, bananas, whatever.

    The fact that Monsanto fears the public backlash is telling. Let the market be free to choose, and if people don't want the product then they should be able to avoid it.

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: 2818129, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/28/2015 11:23:35 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...

Maxx Chatsko

Maxx has been a contributor to since 2013. He's currently a graduate student at Carnegie Mellon University merging synthetic biology with materials science & engineering. His primary coverage for TMF includes renewable energy, renewable fuels, and synthetic biology. Follow him on Twitter to keep pace with developments with engineering biology.

Today's Market

updated 2 hours ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,643.01 -11.76 -0.07%
S&P 500 1,988.87 1.21 0.06%
NASD 4,828.33 15.62 0.32%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes

Related Tickers

8/28/2015 4:01 PM
MON $98.38 Down -0.02 -0.02%
Monsanto CAPS Rating: ***
WFM $32.85 Down -0.29 -0.88%
Whole Foods Market CAPS Rating: ****