Whole Foods Market Caves to Monsanto

Submitted by PRWatch Editors on

WholeFoodsMarketAfter 12 years of battling to stop Monsanto's genetically-engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's organic farmland, the biggest retailers of "natural" and "organic" foods in the U.S., including Whole Foods Market (WFM), Organic Valley and Stonyfield Farm, have agreed to stop opposing mass commercialization of GE crops, like Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa.

In exchange for dropping their opposition, WFM has asked for "compensation" to be paid to organic farmers for "any losses related to the contamination of his crop." Under current laws, Genetically-Modified Organisms (GMOs) are not subject to any pre-market safety testing or labeling. WFM is abandoning its fight with biotech companies in part because two thirds of the products they sell are not certified organic anyway, but are really conventional, chemical-intensive and foods that may contain GMOs and that they market as "natural" despite this. Most consumers don't know the difference between "natural" and "certified organic" products. "Natural" products can come from crops and animals fed nutrients containing GMOs. "Certified Organic" products are GMO-free. WFM and their main distributor, United Natural Foods, maximize profits by selling products labeled "natural" at premium organic prices.  (A typographical error in the second sentence of this story was subsequently corrected.  We regret this minor error.)

Main Source: 
CounterPunch, January 28, 2011
Topics: 
Agriculture
Food Safety
Environment

Comments

Anonymous replied on

It seems you're a hypocrite.

For all Monsanto's patent trolling, it's not the technology itself to blame, it's a misuse. As for India, I highly doubt its land can feed its population without GMO. So "organics" and anti-GMO fear is not a solution, fair law and open knowledge is. To fight Monsanto by opposing GMO itself is like fighting Microsoft by opposing computers. Luddism are not only useless, it in fact helps to hide the real cause.

Mutternich replied on

It's not the technology itself to blame, or even the misuse per se -- it's the corporation that misuses it that's to blame! And Monsanto has never given the slightest indication that it will ever quit misusing the technology to make serfs of farmers as long as it's allowed to. You don't have to be a Luddite to recognize that.

If you "highly doubt" that India can feed itself without GMOs, maybe it's because that's the line that Monsanto and others have be grinding out relentlessly for years and years.

The only problem with non-GMO foods, as Monsanto sees it, is that if farmers can keep on using seeds next year that they saved from this year, as they have since the origins of agriculture thousands of years ago, Monsanto can't make any money off them, and the gazillions they've "invested" in developing Frankenfoods will be lost. It's that simple.

And yes, I think opposing GMO foods is an excellent way to oppose Monsanto. We might not be able to do without computers, but we can do just fine with natural foods, thank you very much!

James Townsend replied on

Actually, there are studies available that belie the Monsanto PR that touts the high yields of GM crops (ie the ability to feed a hungry world). The two promises -- the GM crops will produce higher yield and reduce pesticide use -- have not been demonstrated in 13 years since they were introduced.

I have blogged extensively about this. The latest is here, if you would like to see some of these studies. http://www.wellwise.org/blogs/james-townsend/gmo-blog-do-we-need-genetically-modified-crops

Also, Robyn O'Brien, a food analyst, mother of four and founder of Allery Kids Foundation, has a wonderfully concise and revealing TED video about this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixyrCNVVGA

Anonymous replied on

Absolutely not. It would lead to the decertification of a farm as organic, which would then be a 5-10 year process to undo. It also means that any seeds that the farmer was planning to save are useless, since courts have ruled them the property of Monsanto post-contamination, requiring a purchase of seeds for the next year and a destruction of the fields and crops that are there already.

In the case of alfalfa, it means that farmers lose their animal and soil feed crop and their organic certification in one fell swoop.

Anonymous replied on

Oh god, not another "chemtrailer." GMO's pose real issues- and they really do exist. "Chemtrails" are nonexistent. Its a conspiracy for gullible people backed up by zero evidence or logic.

grndune replied on

just look up. it doesn't happen every day, but it does happen.

Anonymous replied on

You are the one that is misinformed - there is PLENTY of evidence...just look at the astronomical levels of aluminum, barium and strontium in Mt. Shasta, where they have been keeping careful records for years: http://www.project.nsearch.com/forum/topics/mt-shastas-snow-hold-1200-x

Um...who do you work for?

Anonymous replied on

You are the gullible one thinking that chemtrails don't exist!
Ever seen crosses in the sky? Do those naturally occur? NO! Do they correspond to any regular scheduled flights? NO! Ever heard of GEO ENGINEERING? Do they make mining companies profit? YES

Colleen Kendrick replied on

In this age of high speed media, cut and paste reporting is irresponsible. Your readership would be much better served by a bit of fact checking, and providing a broader context for the article.
While spin is always out there, a bit of due diligence would assist you in avoiding the reactionary position of repeating another reporters misguidance.
Here is what Whole Foods has to say on the subject: http://blog.wholefoodsmarket.com/2011/01/no-regulations-ge-alfalfa/
Now, iwth this in mind, please inform your readership how much of this is PR, and what is fact.
Many Thanks,
Colleen Kendrick

Anonymous replied on

So, to counter this "spin," you post a link to Whole Foods???? Sheesh ... who do you think you're kidding? I'm sure you work for them.

Pages