This is very important gardening news...wait, no it isn't.

Nevermind they're still using conventionally farmed non-organic oats, sugar, etc...let's just pretend that's not happening.

You're just determined to post non-gardening news at this point, huh?

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jan 2, 14 at 20:24

This is huge. If other cereal manufacturers catch wind that they are losing even a small percentage of market share to cheerios because of this then non GMO grain suppliers could be bum rushed for raw materials! I can feel it. I can feel it! Other food manufactures could then take notice and try to get ahead of the trend and demand non GMO raw materials as well, driving up the price of non GMO food from farmers. All of a sudden the farmer could say well hey, it pays better to plant non GMO. It may surprise us just how fast this could happen.

It's not that huge. We're talking a cereal that uses so little GMO that it shouldn't effect the product's price or forumlation.

They're replacing 1 gram of GMO beet sugar with 1 gram of non-GMO sugar per cup of product...and a dash of GMO corn starch with a non-GMO starch replacement.

That's it. This doesn't effect cereal manufacturing...it effects those generations of mothers who think feeding Cheerios to babies is awesome and are more scared of 1 gram of GMO beet sugar product and a dash of GMO corn starch than feeding them processed grains as a first solid food.

They're not replacing any of the other varieties of Cheerios besides the original because they have more sugar involved in their production and it would effect the price point. We're talking about replacing 18g of sugar in original Cheerios per box vs 180-ish grams of sugar in the other varieties.

...and besides...the cereal is still 95%+ conventional pesticide/herbicide grown non-organic oats.

This post was edited by nc-crn on Thu, Jan 2, 14 at 23:10

Wall Street Journal explanation:

"GMO-Free Cheerios: What It All Means"

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303640604579297402878493762

Here is a link that might be useful: Wall Street Journal link

Well, I think this is very exciting, and that it signals a trend. Kelloggs corn flakes in Europe say "non GMO" right on the box -- I've always been jealous of that. So now we're getting our own non GMO Cheerios? I agree with greenleaf -- a trickle that could become a torrent. Nc-cm, I'm going to think positive about this one -- Cheerios, and their ubiquitous presence as toddler food, has always made me squirm knowing they were GMO.

Thanks for posting, Henry. I'm emailing this around to people I know will be happy to hear it. Oh well, looks like the organic forum is still where I get my GMO news.

Great news, it's a start! Don't buy anything GMO, they'll figure out demand.

Brilliant PR move.

Oats aren't a GMO and most people should have known that if they are/were concerned about GMOs. People should also note that General Mills is not guaranteeing that there will be no GMO's in the product so you may very well be getting traces of them anyways. But like I said, brilliant marketing move. Some people will lap this up even as they add their milk and sugar to their bowl of Cheerios. But I have to wonder if these people are also aware of the tolerances of insect parts and rodent feces that are allowed in their non-GMO oats that they and their children are consuming? Will General Mills put that information on their boxes?

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for honesty in labelling so the consumer can choose what they wish to consume. But from a producer that does not grow GMO crops, I fully endorse more people buying my crops. Increased demand ought to increase the price.

Bon Appétit.

Lloyd

Lloyd -- it's not the oats that were the GMO issue. It was the corn starch and the sugar. Corn starch is the second ingredient. (sugar third)

The fact that it is a brilliant PR move is what is encouraging about it. That they would do it, and that they believe that people care.

So now, when young hip moms drive their Subaru's with the Free Tibet bumper stickers on their way to the Yoga studios, their toddlers, safely ensconced in $480 car seats to be dropped of at Montessori Day Care, the Cheerios stuck all over the car seats will be non-GMO.

Now thats progress.

I understood that. But as nc already pointed out, the minuscule amounts of sugar and corn starch is almost insignificant in the big scheme of things especially as the company is not guaranteeing that there are no other GMOs in there (you might be getting them anyways). And BTW, not all beet sugar is GMO so they might not have had any GMO sugar in the original ingredients anyways.

I wonder how many anti-GMO people source their sugar and corn from a non-GMO supplier. I'd bet I could go into most any persons house right now and find that they are using these products originated from GMO crops anyways.

Brilliant marketing move on the part of General Mills. I've now seen this story on half a dozen news sites so they are definitely getting the word out there.

Lloyd

Lloyd my man, good to hear you after I have been out of circulation for so long! Here's the thing dude, it is NOT about the Cheerios! It is about the perceived need in the marketing world to be seen as non GMO. I have NO misconception about their motive- $$$$$$$$$$$$$.
That is fine in this case because if that works to drum GMO out of the market, then GREAT!!!

USA Today just came out with a slightly different twist in their handling the story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/01/03/gmo-genetically-modified-organism-facts-cheerios/4302121/

Of particular interest:

" FDA is considering two citizen petitions it has received asking the agency to require GMO labeling."

And

"Why are some people concerned about GMOs?

Critics say there are potential health effects (see next question) and environmental concerns surrounding GMOs. One of the supposed benefits of GMOs is that they should result in less herbicide spraying, since some plants have been modified to be herbicide resistant. However, over-reliance on these crops has led to the emergence of "super weeds" that are also more resistant to herbicides, requiring increased spraying, according to a University of Washington study."
H.Kuska comment: the U. of Washington study link was given. It is:
http://news.cahnrs.wsu.edu/2012/10/01/summary-of-major-findings-and-definitions-of-important-terms/

Of particular interest, to me, is the following: "Today’s major GE crops have increased overall pesticide use by 404 million pounds from 1996 through 2011 (527 million pound increase in herbicides, minus the 123 million pound decrease in insecticides). Overall pesticide use in 2011 was about 20% higher on each acre planted to a GE crop, compared to pesticide use on acres not planted to GE crops."

And

The biotechnology-seed-pesticide industry’s primary response to the spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds is development of new HT varieties resistant to multiple herbicides, including 2,4-D and dicamba. These older phenoxy herbicides pose markedly greater human health and environmental risks per acre treated than glyphosate. Approval of corn tolerant of 2,4-D is pending, and could lead to an additional 50% increase in herbicide use per acre on 2,4-D HT corn."

H.Kuska comment: I could actually cut and paste much of the article, but instead I will simply suggest that everyone read the complete article. However, I will put the conclusion here:
"Much new research will be required to translate emerging data on higher exposures to glyphosate and Bt toxins into estimates of human, farm and companion animal, and environmental risks."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.Kuska further comment: I feel that the above conclusion is consistent with my personel conclusion that scientists who are opposed to their being GMOs in our food supply generally are opposed to using the general population as beta testers ( beta testers is my term - long term safety studies are still needed is a more common statement). The main concern, as I see it, is what will happen if we are exposed to a continual diet of GMOs for an extended period. Normally included in statements like this is that each type of GMO has to be certified individually.
-----------------------------------
2013 scientific review:

Title: "Food health quality of genetically modified crops ��"
review of risks and benefits"

"However, genetically modified organism are relatively new, as they appeared commercially in the mid 90’s and are poorly addressed by current testing methods [51]. That is why, there is a need for further discussions on
risks and benefits of GM crops not only in terms of health, but also in terms of the environmental and socio-economic effects. To obtain more valuable results, the presented factors must be also evaluated in terms of their relative importance
under specific conditions. For example, in poor
and malnourished societies, “improved nutrition”
and “food availability” may be considered
a more important aspect of health sustainability
than “changes in level of natural toxins” in plants, whereas in rich societies, this relation is likely to
be the opposite. A major limitation of this review
is the availability of the existing studies, showing
results that were often conflicting and rooted in
speculations. Thus, further research is needed to
obtain more consistent outcome."

http://mil-pharm-med.pl/2013/2-6/3.pdf

Here is a link that might be useful: USA Today version of story

I'm sure many will take this as a sign that corporations are going to change. If this were true they would have done it for the complete Cheerio product line and every other cereal line they produce.

General Mills likely saw that there would be a huge marketing boon by a minuscule change that means nothing to their bottom line. They knew that there are many people who will not look at this objectively without their anti-whatever glasses on that will be spoofed by it. Logical people look at the bigger picture and go "meh, not much of a change really".

I suspect other oat cereal producers will follow because it will cost next to nothing to do so. I bet that bags of rolled oats and other products that never had a GMO ingredient in the first place will also be quickly labelled as " ** NO GMO ingredients added". As you said, it's all about perception and fooling people is what marketing gurus do very well.

If people wish to think that this will result in a nation wide trend, then fill their boots. Until I see a substantial formulation change, I'm gonna go with a minor tinkering to appease a group that is easy to appease with a huge public relations bonus with no downside. Heck, even the media coverage is giving them free advertising.

The GMO genie will never be put back in the bottle. Once people realize what they would have to do without, or what they would have to pay to be completely GMO free, they will balk.

** may contain traces of GMO products

Lloyd

Do you think there's hope for Hellmann's Mayo?

I just came from AgWeb [Crop Talk] where farmers were discussing the Cheerios and GMO and non GMO crops. One thing I brought back was the claim that refined sugars and starches do not manifest protein or DNA.

"Cereal manufacturer Post announced this week that it will begin manufacturing a "Non-GMO Verified" version of the company's staple barley and wheat cereal, Grape-Nuts"

http://farmfutures.com/story-gmo-activists-make-headway-cereal-category-0-107436

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above

I wonder how long until a corn based cereal goes GMO free.

Nature's Path/Envirokidz (sub-brand of NP) makes a couple versions using non-GMO corn meal based cereals. They don't vitamin fortify their cereals, though...so you're pretty much just getting carbs and a touch of vitamin content from them.

Erewhon makes a good non-GMO corn flake cereal...hard to find in some areas, though. They mostly do a lot of rice-based cereal. They also don't vitamin fortify their cereal.

There's a few other regional non-GMO corn cereals, but they're even harder to get a hold of depending on the region.

It would be hard for a major manufacturer to source enough non-GMO corn meal given the current farm setup...it would take some warning and/or industry contracting. Plus, it would hard to vitamin-fortify a non-GMO cereal (especially a kid's cereal where it's very common to fortify) without adding more expense...a lot of common vitamin supplements are GMO-based.

Seems it isn't such a big deal after all.

Lloyd

Here is a link that might be useful: Cheerios not seeing a sales boost