CORPORATIONS AND GMOS: YES OR NOT?

BIG INDUSTRY AND GMOs: A CASE ON BIPOLARITY?

Big ambigüity in big industry’s claims on GMOs. On the one hand it says that GMOs are unnecessary to feed the world, and that industry’d better do what consumers want, but at the same time it claims that GMOs are essentially equivalent to non-GMO and pour millions in anti GMO labelling campaigns thwarting consumers’ Right to Know. The following article describes their contradictions: the paradigmatic Swiss Nestle’s case.

NESTLE: GMOS UNNECESSARY TO FEED THE WORLD (from an article by O.W.N News Network, Submitted 15 October 2012).

In Brazil, according to a major Brazilian business publication and GMWatch, a Sao Paolo court has demanded that multi-billion dollar food giant Nestle label all of their products as genetically modified that have over 1% GMO content. The ruling coincides with Brazilian law which demands all food manufacturers alert consumers to the presence of GMOs within their products.
The court exposed a deep relationship between the Brazilian government and a major food industry lobby group ABIA to fight existing GM labeling rules and stop the court from issuing the ruling. The court ordered that Nestle pay R5,000 per product found on the market that contravened the order. The case followed an analysis that found GM soy ingredients in the composition of Nestle’s strawberry flavoured Bono cookies.
Nestlés: a case on bipolarity?

Nestle’s corporate head of agriculture, Hans Jöhr, says Nestlé has a very simple way of looking at GM: “Listen to what the consumer wants. If they don’t want it in products, you don’t put it in them. Genetically modified food is unnecessary to feed the world and the food industry would reap more benefits from using resources more sustainably and employing other techniques.”

But according to records kept by the California Secretary of State, Nestle USA made four separate donations to the ‘No on 37 Coalition’, fighting against the labeling of GMO ingredients in California. In a seven-week period, the company gave nearly $1.17 million to prevent the measure from passing.

And Nestle’s policy on GMOs in food production states: “The safety of our products and the integrity of the ingredients from which they are manufactured are paramount to Nestlé. Genetically modified crops, as all raw materials used by Nestlé, comply to strict regulatory and safety evaluations. WHO, FAO, OECD and numerous independent scientific bodies have concluded that genetically modified crops, including ingredients derived from them that have passed food safety evaluation procedures, can be registered as safe for use in food production. Nestlé concurs with their shared opinion that such crops are as safe as their traditional counterparts.
What science says?
A UK report, GMO Myths and Truths (Earth Open Source, June 2012), was published by a team of genetic scientists at London’s King’s College, Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson and John Fagan. The scientists conclude that on the evidence presented in their report, “GM technology is fundamentally unsound and poses scientifically proven risks to human and animal health”. They add that the claims made for the benefits of GM crops are “highly exaggerated and GM crop technology has been shown to be unsustainable.”
Full article; http://organicwellnessnews.com/en/nestle-gmos-unnecessary-to-feed-the-world/

This Blog’s Editor’s comment:

Leaving aside for a moment this Editor’s organic and sustainability principles on whether GMO foods’ are or are not safe for human consumption, he marvels at the fact that an intelectually developed people like Americans and their political representatives in Congress allow to be swayed from their majority will by multimillion dollar publicity campaigns against their Right to Know  brandishing the blatant lie that GMO labelling will increase food costs for the consumers. Using money for these kind of purposes is outright immoral and helps giving Capitalism its frequently bad name.