Biotechnology

By Feeding Bogus GMO Fears, Chipotle Treats Customers Like Idiots

The food chain tries to profit from anti-biotech propaganda

|

Chipotle
onegreenplanet

In April, the high-class tortilla-peddling chain Chipotle announced that it was going GMO-free. That is, the company would no longer use ingredients derived from modern biotech crops in its foods.

Chipotle says it sells "food with integrity." The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines integrity as "the quality of being honest and fair." The company, alas, is being neither honest nor fair about the safety and environmental benefits provided by modern biotech crops. 

The company offers three "key" reasons for rejecting genetically-modified ingredients. The first: "We don't believe the scientific community has reached a consensus on the long-term implications of widespread GMO cultivation and consumption." As evidence for this statement, the company notes that "in October 2013 a group of about 300 scientists from around the world signed a statement rejecting the claim that there is a scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs for human consumption." Three hundred whole scientists!

So who are these GMO rejecters? The cited statement was issued by a notorious anti-biotech claque, the European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility. Among the signers are such anti-biotech luminaries as Charles Benbrook, Vandana Shiva, and Gilles-Éric Séralini. Benbrook regularly (and incorrectly) claims that planting biotech crops has boosted pesticide applications; Vandana Shiva lies about biotech crop failures causing farmer suicides in India; Seralini produced a bogus study in 2013 that claimed that mice fed biotech corn developed breast cancer. (The study was later retracted.)

The plain fact is that every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of modern biotech crops has deemed them safe for human beings to eat. This includes the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the European Commission, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many more.

Chipotle's second "key reason" for rejecting modern biotech ingredients is that "the cultivation of GMOs can damage the environment." As evidence, the company cites a Washington State University study "that estimated that between 1996 and 2011, pesticide and herbicide use increased by more than 400 million pounds as a result of GMO cultivation." The principal researcher was none other than the aforementioned activist Charles Benbrook, and the funding for Benbrook's study was supplied by leading anti-biotech groups, including the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Consumers Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Organic Center. But as it happens, you don't have to depend on estimates by activists for this data; there are actual figures available, and they show that farmers who plant biotech crops use less pesticides overall. 

In May 2014, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service issued its comprehensive report Pesticide Use in U.S. Agriculture, updating national herbicide and insecticide usage trends. The agency found that herbicide usage peaked at 478 million pounds in 1981—a decade and half prior to the introduction of the first biotech crop varieties—and fell to 394 million pounds in 2008. So instead of a massive increase in herbicide spraying, as claimed by Benbrook, the USDA actually reports a modest decline. Insecticide applications peaked in 1972 at 158 million pounds, dropping to 29 million pounds in 2008.

It's worth noting that the insecticide DDT accounted for 11 percent of all agricultural pesticides used in 1972. Since biotech crops can protect themselves against insect pests, there is far less need for farmers to spray their crops.

In November 2014, German researchers reviewed 147 agronomic studies and similarly reported that "on average, GM technology adoption has reduced chemical pesticide use by 37 percent, increased crop yields by 22 percent, and increased farmer profits by 68 percent."

What really does cause damage to the environment? Growing low-yield crops, because that means more land must be plowed down instead of being left for nature. And organic farming generally produces lower yields than conventional farming. A 2012 review in the journal Nature found that "overall, organic yields are 25 percent lower than conventional yields." 

The latest figures from the USDA note that about 408 million acres of land in 2007 were devoted to growing crops. If the Nature study is accurate, going organic would mean plowing up an extra 100 million acres of land to produce the same amount of food. That's bigger than California and Indiana combined.

Chipotle notes that many of the beverages it sells "contain genetically modified ingredients, including those containing corn syrup, which is almost always made from GMO corn." Scientifically speaking, this is nonsense. After processing, corn syrup contains no detectable levels of genetic material, either "natural" or biotech. Chipotle also minces words when it comes to the cheese it uses. The commercial cheeses served by Chipotle are curdled using rennin derived from genetically engineered bacteria. But Chipotle says that's OK because it is classified as a "processing aid" and no nasty GMO genes are actually in the cheese. Sort of like corn syrup in soft drinks.

Chipotle's third "key reason" is that the restaurant "should be a place where people can eat food made with non-GMO ingredients." Why? The company states, "In our quest to serve the best ingredients, we decided to remove the few GMOs in our food so that our customers who choose to avoid them can enjoy eating at Chipotle." Basically, this is a marketing ploy aimed at appealing to customers who have been bamboozled into thinking that organic is good and biotech is bad.

The customer is always right, even when they are wrong. Companies are free to educate their customers or, like Chipotle, to try to take advantage of their ignorance. Many are choosing the second course.

Consequently, a lot of retailers have now introduced organic and "natural" food products to supply the market based on ignorance. Target's Simply Balanced brand, for example, debuted in 2013. Simply Balanced organic flour goes for $5.34 per five-pound bag, while the same amount of Gold Medal All Purpose unbleached flour sells for $2.49. Simply Balanced Mac & Cheese goes for $1.29 for six ounces, compared to Kraft's Deluxe Mac & Cheese for $1.12. Sixteen ounces of Simply Balanced organic spaghetti sells for $2.29, while Barilla regularly goes for $1.34 and Target's non-organic Market Pantry house brand can be had for $1.24. Simply Balanced organic marinara sauce costs $3.34 for 24 ounces; Barilla sells that much for $1.99. Simply Balanced organic peanut butter costs $5.99 per pound, whereas Jif Crunchy peanut butter goes for $2.20. Even Jif's "natural" crunchy peanut butter is just $2.49.

A similar recent price comparison between Kroger's Simple Truth organic products and the chain's conventional products finds that your best grocery-store dollar bet is on regular foods. Organic products are more expensive, and they provide no extra taste or nutrition benefits. Still, Simple Truth sales reached $1.2 billion by the end of 2014.

The chief reason that Chipotle, or any company, is eschewing ingredients from modern biotech crops is to profit by catering to their customers' preferences. But will they? Perhaps not.

Consider the case of non-GMO Cheerios. In 2014, General Mills announced with great fanfare that it was dropping biotech ingredients in its iconic Cheerios cereal. The move has apparently had no effect on sales. CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press that the company was "not really seeing anything there that we can detect" in terms of a sales lift. He further opined that genetically modified organisms aren't really a concern for most customers.

Also in 2014, Boulder Brands, maker of Smart Balance Buttery Spread, announced that it too was going GMO-free. After eight months, CEO Steve Hughes admitted, "We have not seen a widespread lift in our sales due to the non-GMO launch."

Still, dupes of anti-biotech propaganda are evidently buying more quack non-GMO products. According to a recent estimate, sales of non-GMO products in the U.S. reached $8.5 billion last year and are growing faster than many conventional food products. Private companies like Chipotle certainly have the right to try to sell whatever they want. But they cannot claim that they are acting with integrity.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

335 responses to “By Feeding Bogus GMO Fears, Chipotle Treats Customers Like Idiots

  1. More land cultivation means more jobs paying a LIVING WAGE. And those additional farmers won’t have their genes scrambled by frankenfoods. You can be so myopic at times, Ron.

    1. What do you expect? He’s either a GMO industrial complex stooge or his thought process is addled by the well known effect of GMOs on rational thinking and journalistic integrity.

    2. Ron Bailey doesn’t seem to understand freedom of choice. People have the freedom to choose not to consume GMOs andd Chipotle has the freedom to respond to the demands of the customers. Such choice ought to be celebrated, and not denigrated because the choice does not align with your particular set of values.

  2. A great TED talk for anyone interested in the GMO debate:

    The case for engineering our food by Pamela Ronald, Plant Geneticist.

    Points out the sillyness and just bad thinking by the non GMO crowd..

    http://www.ted.com/talks/pamel…..g_our_food

    very enlightening.

    1. Monsanto shill!

    2. Oh. I was joking, but the idiot below me seems completely serious. That makes this less funny, and more sad.

      1. Thank you. As the video points out these miracles plants (I call lots of less dead and blind kids a miracle) are being donated/given away by charitable foundations. Not sure how that is a big Monsanto plot, but I’m sure tz will have an answer for that one.

        I grew up on a farm, and my ancestors were genetically engineering crops for generations. We called it ‘selective breeding’, but same thing.

        1. Genetic engineering isn’t the same thing. It’s better, faster, more precise and makes possible things that never could have been done with conventional artificial selection.

          Why someone always feels the need to say it’s the same is beyond me. I suppose it is a useful tactic to defuse some of the dumb arguments against. But I say that deliberately changing or adding specific genes for specific purposes is different enough from waiting for useful mutations or changes to happen randomly and selecting for them that it should be considered a new approach to crop development.

          1. “Why someone always feels the need to say it’s the same is beyond me. I suppose it is a useful tactic to defuse some of the dumb arguments against. But I say that deliberately changing or adding specific genes for specific purposes is different enough from waiting for useful mutations or changes to happen randomly and selecting for them that it should be considered a new approach to crop development.”

            That’s nice.

            Every biochemist or expert in the field I’ve ever spoken with or heard from says they’re the exact same things, and that people who engage in the fallacious argument you’re presenting are doing no more than splitting hairs.

            Meanwhile, nature doesn’t give a fuck about the specifics of how those modifications take place.

            1. Nature doesn’t give a fuck about anything. I care about the specifics of how the modifications take place because I think it is fantastic that we have made the huge leap in how we are able to develop new crops.
              Yes, of course it is the same biochemically. Genes are genes. But technologically, it is a huge shift. It sells the new technology short to say it is the same thing. People have been growing rice for thousands of years. And could probably keep conventionally breeding it for 1000 more without coming up with golden rice. It is a new thing and it is awesome. Instead of waiting for some desirable trait to happen, we can now add specific traits to things far more quickly and effectively. Why wouldn’t you make the distinction. The only reason I can think of is that ignorant people will make an issue of it.

            2. Every biochemist or expert in the field I’ve ever spoken with or heard from says they’re the exact same things, and that people who engage in the fallacious argument you’re presenting are doing no more than splitting hairs.

              It’s not the same thing and, either your biochemists weren’t considering it in context, or they were flat out wrong.

              Grabbing the most expedient example; Bt-Corn is a plant that contains a bacterial gene that encodes a protein ruptures the intestinal lining of insects. There is no way to selectively breed that gene into the genome. The gene, expressed in the corn, is detectably different at all levels from bacterially produced bt. The differences are immaterial with regard to function and breakdown, but acting like you could breed Bt-Corn on nearly any imaginable timescale is fallacious.

              1. Thanks for a better concrete example of what I am trying to say.

              2. mad.casual… yes, emphatically, but if the anti-GMO teams want to CLAIM that Bt-Corn or any other GMO food products are BAD For Us, wouldn’t it make more sense to PROVE that humans eating the PRODUCTS actually suffer some kind of damage?

                We don’t eat GMO Seed Corn… we eat the kernels that grow on the stalks that grow From those seeds. An herbicide-resistant plant might be dangerous if it takes up higher concentrations OF the herbicides and deposits them INTO the parts we ingest.

                But if you can’t tell GMO-sourced End Products from Non-GMO-sourced End Products, you’re just practicing Bad Science.

                I inferred from the article that some marketing wag at Chipotle came up with the idea that, since so many people have been scared by the anti-GMO rhetoric in the mainscream media, they might ride that wave by actually ‘following those suggestions,’ no matter if there’s any science or controlled experiments behind it to show real benefits or effects from such a program.

                Just an opportunistic manipulation of consumers by Chipotle in an attempt to gain market share from their competitors.

                If it works for them, it works. But the basis of that success is the stupidity, ignorance or gullibility of their own customers, and NOT because of any reliable experimental data.

                Their consumers obviously don’t understand that or care, but have evolved into a new breed of Sheeple.

                And that’s going to be a harder tide to turn!

          2. Point taken. My point was same concept. We just have so much better tools now to (hopefully) improve things so much more quickly. I agree that deliberately changing or adding genes is different. Mostly because we can do it so much more quickly and effectively. The question is, is that a good thing. I suggest it is. If you believe folks are motivated for the right goals which I do, then we will be able to improve the lives of millions while reducing the impact on the planet. I just don’t get the doom and gloom scenarios.

    3. TED talk? LMAOOO!!

      Thanks for the laugh. I needed that.

  3. But there is a 97% consensus on “Climate Change” and I think they are good on that.

    Is science based on the majority opinion, or experimental or historical evidence?

    I’m a GMO skeptic (what really is in GMO – modified to add what exactly?). If given a choice, I’ll go with non-GMO.

    The government said stop eating fat and substitute carbs and people got fat. Now we are returning to avoid carbs, eat fat (LCHF diet), and people are slimming again.

    This is Reason – But it swallows whatever the government says about GMOs, and if not directly government, crony agribusiness. If Monsanto wasn’t such a para-levithan horror, I might be more trusting.

    The Kochs make me a bit skeptical.

    Monsanto makes me think anything they are pushing is a lie.

    1. Your long-windedness and spelling errors make me think you’re probably a moron.

      1. “Your long-windedness and spelling errors make me think you’re probably a moron.”

        Don’t forget the fact that his one and only argument is “:RRAAARG BLAAARGH MONSATAN!”

    2. “The plain fact is that every independent scientific body that has ever evaluated the safety of modern biotech crops has deemed them safe for human beings to eat. This includes the Food and Drug Administration…”

      1. Here is the sort of ignoramus we have here:

        mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
        “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

        See, he, like every other ego-manical adolescent claims he really doesn’t care what anyone thinks. He’s just posting here since he loves to see his name in print!
        This asshole’s lies are lies!

    3. I’m a GMO skeptic (what really is in GMO – modified to add what exactly?). If given a choice, I’ll go with non-GMO.

      So you only eat those tiny little sour, wild strawberries?

      1. So you only eat those tiny little sour, wild strawberries?

        The ones that grow around here aren’t sour. They have a *very* mild flavor. The fruit equivalent of a necco wafer.

        1. If you get them at just the right time, they are better than any cultivated strawberry. But squirrels usually get them first and it is not worth the effort to collect enough to do anything with.

          A lot of wild stuff does have better flavor (blueberries might be the best example), but cultivated varieties are much more economically viable.

          1. Listen to the Zeb. =)

            I don’t mind using cultivated berries, but some of the wild ones are the shit. Hey it’s fiddlehead season. =)

      2. Also, no corn at all. In fact, most I don’t know how you’d find any food these days that hasn’t bee genetically modified by humans. Would “wild” strawberries even meet that criteria? Being picked by natives for 10,000 years must have had some impact on them.

        1. Why am I the only one who thinks that the distinction between genetically engineered and selectively bred plants is worthwhile to make? I am completely for genetic engineering and I think it is just absurd to claim it is the same as selection for traits that happen through random processes. GMOs are created through really novel processes. It is a lot more than just a faster version of traditional plant breeding, which actually is more or less a faster and more teleological version of the natural processes of evolution.

          I suppose it doesn’t matter. Things are what they are. But I feel like people let their (justified) disdain for the anti-GMOers get the better of them on this. Why not argue that conventional plant breeding is at least as likely to produce unknown or dangerous genetic changes as a well tested GMO?

          I don’t know, maybe I’m just too interested in the process.

          1. The distinction matters only in that GMOs are even safer than selectively bred, but the end result is the same.

            1. Genetic engineering is faster too. That’s important.

              I was trying to think of a good analogy.

              An axe and a chainsaw accomplish the same thing. But I think there is a distinction worth making between them.

              1. An axe and a chainsaw accomplish the same thing. But I think there is a distinction worth making between them.

                Rocks and bullets both work via kinetic energy and are the same in that regard. That doesn’t mean I’d equate a war waged with rocks to one with guns.

                There is a critical threshold, namely the consistency of human flesh combined with the rate and distance at which it can be penetrated, that you are talking about two different weapons to the point that one could hardly be conceived of as a weapon.

                1. “There is a critical threshold, namely the consistency of human flesh combined with the rate and distance at which it can be penetrated”

                  The whole point of science is to observe and measure. We engage in science to avoid your moronic metaphors.

              2. Yeah. The chainsaw causes GLOBAL WARMING!!1!!!1!1

              3. I’ve never heard of a person bucking a log with an axe before. OTOH one can keep an axe behind the seat in the truck for an indefinite period of time without having to worry about ethanol in the fuel, spark plugs fouling, plugged fuel filters, or running out of fuel.

            2. “The distinction matters only in that GMOs are even safer than selectively bred, but the end result is the same.”

              Comment less and read more. The end result is not the same.

          2. I think it’s splitting hairs. When genetic engineers go through the process of trying to alter a gene it takes a lot of effort and a lot of failed attempts before they get what they want. The techniques are different but the possible outcomes are the same. Most of the time you get something that is worthless, meaning the desired genetic change did not happen. Eventually it does work, though, and the end result that goes to market is the same (ie. an edible food product). The procedural differences are irrelevant to the end consumer.

            1. Yeah, I understand that there is a lot more to it than sticking a gene in and planting a seed. But it’s still a whole lot faster and more directed than selective breeding.

              And I have a hard time believing that some things like golden rice would come about at all through conventional breeding. Maybe I’m wrong. I’m no expert.

    4. C-

      The government said stop eating fat and substitute carbs and people got fat. Now we are returning to avoid carbs, eat fat (LCHF diet), and people are slimming again.

      Untrue. We’re just as fat as we ever were. Dietary composition is but one of a myriad components of which the gov’t controls, or even understands, few.

      This is Reason

      *drink*

      But it swallows whatever the government says about GMOs, and if not directly government, crony agribusiness. If Monsanto wasn’t such a para-levithan horror, I might be more trusting.

      Yeah, I prefer my genetic modifications done by no-name homebrew hacks too. Those… corporations…. with their procedures, testing, and lawyers… *phbbt* to them.

    5. KOCHTOPUUUUUUUUUUUS!

    6. But it swallows whatever the government says about GMOs, and if not directly government, crony agribusiness.

      Because the overwhelming (88%) scientific consensus that says GMOs are safe means nothing to you?

      1. Why do people find the idea of scientific consensus so compelling? History is rife with examples of scientific consensus that was later proven incorrect. I suppose it is a good starting point but to suggest that consensus means “case-closed, the matter is settled” is myopic.

        1. Because it is usually the best indication to non-experts that a theory is probably at least approximately true. Unless you are actually doing the research or at least are very well versed in the literature, you have to have some reason to believe one thing rather than another.
          But as you say, there are a number of examples of the consensus position turning out to be incorrect and one should at least acknowledge the possibility.

          1. There is no such thing as a scientific consensus, because if it is a consensus, then it is politics and not science.

            That being said, the way to show science is to provide an example where the theory fails. Just one means it is wrong.

            The GMO theory is “GMO food is safe”. The example to prove it wrong is the death that it caused. There is not a single death anywhere in the world attributable to GMO food. One cannot prove it is safe, but one can prove that no one has proven it unsafe.

            The analogy with anthropogenic global warming, which many anti-GMO people like to believe, is that CO2 from burning fossil fuels causes global warming in a way as shown by the predictions of climate models. Those predictions do not match observations and are therefore wrong. No one can prove that CO2 does not contribute to global warming, but it is easy to show it is not the dominate driver as the climate models would have people believe.

        2. If you’re talking about legislation that’s going to force people to do, or not do, something, you damn well ought to have the science on your side.

    7. The problem is that poor tz mixes real issue (over blown claims by CAGW cultists and the food pyramid nonsense) with some Kochtapus moral panic.

    8. It is funny, how quick Reason is to accept the scientific consensus on GMO, but to reject it on climate change.

      1. Here’s the thing. The GMO research is documented. They have actual results from actual people who ate the food.

        The climate change “consensus” is a modeled projection.

      2. Maybe because the 2 are entirely different? One measures physical outcomes of past experiments while the other pulls educated guesses, based on flawed models, about the future out of its ass?

        You must be a regular at I FUCKING LOVE SOCIAL SIGNALLING SCIENCE!

      3. Drink!

        And for the record, Bailey accepts the scientific consensus on climate change, so I’m not sure what you and tz are complaining about.

      4. The operative word is ‘scientific.’ There is a specific claims about GMOs that can be falsified, whereas with catastrophic climate change (which is an important distinction; very few deny it’s happening, just whether it will be catastrophic) the claims are so squishy that there is so way to disprove it, making it by Popper’s definition a pseudoscience. Any evidence that contradicts catastrophic climate change is dismissed or spun to be further proof for catastrophic climate change.

        1. there *ARE specific claims…
          Damn you grammers!

      5. Kroneborge|5.8.15 @ 1:56PM|#
        “It is funny, how quick Reason is to accept the scientific consensus on GMO, but to reject it on climate change.”

        It is funny how Kroneborge misses the point to pitch his ignorance.

    9. MONSANTO!!!111!!!!!! KKKOCHTAPUSS!!!11!!!1!!!1!!!!!!! DERP DE DERPITY DERPTY DER!!!11!!!!

    10. In the case of GMO’s the science is based-on all three – majority opinion, experimental, and historical evidence.

    11. what really is in GMO – modified to add what exactly?

      Well, the nice thing about GMOs is that if you bother to look into it, you can find out exactly what was modified and for what purpose. Which is something you don’t get from conventional plant breeding.

    12. I hate drive-by trolls.

  4. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Ronald Bailey hates free markets.

    1. I for one am happy that he’s calling for government intervention to force them to offer food laced with GMOs.

    2. How is “scaring people with lies about food safety” Pro-Free-Market again?

      Also, Gweneth, you’re looking peaked. Perhaps you need another vitamin shot so your bones don’t disintegrate.

      1. How is “scaring people with lies about food safety” Pro-Free-Market again?

        Not to defend Paltrow exactly but, how do you propose silencing them?

        1. Shaming and education, as Bailey is doing here.

        2. I don’t care to silence them at all. (see below). I’m pro-transparency, and exposing when companies lie to scare people.

    3. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Ronald Bailey hates free markets.”

      This is pretty stupid since he’s not arguing these people shouldn’t be allowed to do this, just that they’re dumb to do so. If I made fun of phone psychics that wouldn’t make me anti-free market.

    4. Does he want to forbid Chipotle from not selling GMO based food?

      The free market also includes people who publicly criticize companies’ silly marketing decisions.

    5. Agreed. Ronald Bailey appears to hate free markets if they don’t conform to his values.

  5. “”high-class“”

    Nothing says “haute cuisine” than an assembly line of rubber-gloved high-school dropouts throwing fistfuls of shredded produce in a plastic tub and calling it a “Burrito Bowl”

    1. Yeah, that phrase threw me, too. Chipotle may be cleaner and better organized than the roach coach two blocks down from the office, but it’s primarily a fast-food Mexican joint for soccer moms and their ilk.

      1. And the food sucks. Just saying.

        1. I thought it was pretty tasty the one time I went there.

          1. The moment I heard they used “Organic” food, I decided I’d never eat there.

            1. I will eat wherever the food tastes good for what I consider a reasonable price.

              1. Pretty much this. I like the food and I know what I’m going to get whichever one I visit. My city is full of anonymous joints but I don’t have time or money to waste on discovering which one is worth getting my money.

                That said, if this anti-GMO foolishness causes the prices to go up (and it will), I will probably take my business elsewhere.

          2. I eat there once a month or so and thoroughly enjoy it. I’m not likely to avoid it due to malarkey like this any more than I would frequent a place because they tout their ecological creds.
            It’s good, the people are nice, the service is pretty quick and it’s on the way home from my Tuesday night bike ride. There’s more than one factor that determines where one eats.

            1. Hell i’ve eaten there. consuming their finished product does not mean you can’t mercilessly mock their pretensions.

              The only thing that really gets me is the fact that (for whatever reason) the marketing department determined that

              “forcing you to watch ugly people put their hands all over the food you are about to consume”

              …was determined to be a positive ‘value-added’ experience.

              it personally makes me nauseous. at least Subway has the decency to put a screen between you and the ex-convicts manhandling your lunch.

              1. True! And it’s the main thing that keeps me coming back to Reason, the merciless mocking.
                There are a plethora of mock-worthy candidates locally, like this on:
                http://www.christopherskitchenfl.com/about/
                The Chipotle nearest me has a glass sneeze shield type of barrier. God forbid you reach your hand over it to point at something.
                Personally I think their assembly line is rather ingenious. It can be run by one ex-con/high school student during slack times and ramped up in response to demand.

          3. And the freemarket succeeds again! To those who enjoy them go the burritos!

      2. I was thinking more “middlebrow” and/or “self-satisfied social signaling post-hipster cuisine”.

      3. “Taco Bell for Soccer Moms”

        that’s it right there.

        as Starbucks is ‘Dunkin Donuts’,
        and Banana Republic is ‘Old Navy’,
        and “Happy Valley’s Organic Old Tyme Artisinal Handmade GMO-Free Bee-Friendly Peanut Butter” is actually Skippy…. in a more expensive jar.

        Welcome to the food and beverage marketing theme of the last 20 years.

        the entire point of these types of institutions/brands is to get people to pay 50% more to help them feel less “strip-mall”-middle-class.

        Consumerism in the 2000s has been defined by “becoming upper-middle-class through what you consume”

        People will pay more to feel like they are ‘culturally superior’ to those scum that eat at Taco Bell.

        1. and “Happy Valley’s Organic Old Tyme Artisinal Handmade GMO-Free Bee-Friendly Peanut Butter” is actually Skippy…. in a more expensive jar.

          Nah. Skippy doesn’t separate so you don’t have to stir it up after it sits for a while.

          1. “”THOSE R FRANKENPEANUTS!! The fact that our handmade, all-natural peanut-spread may become a mix of gelatin and mold if not immediately consumed is because *its natural*, Duh””

        2. You really think the food at Taco Bell is as good as Chipotle? I have body parts that say otherwise.

          1. Yeah, that’s fucking ridiculous.

      4. I need to patronize the local taco trucks more often, dammit. The guy who runs the one closest to me is the nicest guy. Akron isn’t exactly full of no-shit real Mexican street food. I must do better, but I think I’m subconsiously afraid of the Jehovah’s Witnesses whose church is right across the street next to what I am certain is a dumping ground for the vestiges of the Mob.

        1. I’ve had one too many stringy disgusting chicken-kebabs to ever trust street food again. Although I did try street Indian recently and – it was disgusting. Before my job got shipped to Jersey wasteland, I enjoyed the Indian food at a little hole-in-the-wall chain in lower Manhattan for the same price and much better quality. This “food truck” craze is out of control and people think they can charge anything they want now.

      5. And generally speaking the roach coach down the street has better, more authentic Mexican food. Especially if it is in the southwest. Some of the best Mexican food I ever ate was from roach coaches when I was stationed at Ft. Sam Houston.

    2. Yeah, if I want Mexican, I will go to ye olde Mom and Pop tacqueria and pay less, get more and skip the pretentiousness.

      1. Ditto. And tip well. Always tip well.

        1. Always…

          And the smarter places always have the most attractive daughter/niece/whatever serving too.

    3. It’s a step above Taco Bell. QED.

      1. At the very least.

    4. My daughter works at one of their outlets. She has a degree in chemical engineering from a major school. Graduated near the top of her class. Why is she working there? Chemical engineers are too nerdy.

  6. tz|5.8.15 @ 12:52PM

    mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 1:34PM

    Paltrow|5.8.15 @ 1:28PM

    My milkshake a GMO article brings all the boys idiots to the yard…

    1. Who dare question the pronouncements of the FDA? Only idiots it seems.

      1. Well, the FDA and every objective, peer-review-submitting scientific establishment on the planet.

        1. “Well, the FDA and every objective, peer-review-submitting scientific establishment on the planet.”

          But Bailey mentioned the FDA as “independent scientific body.” I question this. They have an agenda. I also don’t see these long-term safety studies.

      2. So if the pronouncements of the FDA are meaningless, why have it?

        1. “why have it?”

          They promote GMO for a start.

          1. That must be why they still havn’t approved GMO salmon. Or wheat.

            1. “That must be why they still havn’t approved GMO salmon”

              Do you have any doubts they will?

              1. Both of those products have been waiting for approval for over 10 years.
                They have been held up for purely political reasons. The FDA is not “promoting” GMOs. They are catering to the political winds.
                Frankly, the only reason any of this stuff gets approved is because the FDA knows that it HAS TO. When they can’t find a legit reason not to do it, they can get sued.

                1. Not only awaiting approval for a ridiculous amount of time but an illegal amount of time. And all so some idiot like tz or mtrueman can protect their precious, organic, natural botulism.

                2. “They are catering to the political winds.”

                  Nonsense. The FDA is an independent scientific body. Just ask Ron Bailey.

                  1. I trust the National Academy of Sciences much more than the FDA, personally. If it was ONLY the FDA saying that GMOs are safe, that would be one thing. But it’s not. It’s every single fucking major scientific society on the planet.

                    1. “It’s every single fucking major scientific society on the planet.”

                      Chipotle’s number one reason for eschewing GMO is the lack of long-term safety studies. If Chipotle is wrong here and every single scientist on the planet is willing to attest to GMO’s long-term safety, then someone should email them a link or so and save them the trouble. Maybe someone has already done so given the uproar Chipotle has provoked here.

                    2. There is no reason to do long-term safety studies because there is no theoretical basis in actual biology for believing there is anything more or less harmful about modifying genes by way of recombinant DNA splicing than by way of selective cross-breeding.

                      Do you get that? There’s not even any credible biological theory that supports the anti-GMOers arguments.

                    3. “There is no reason to do long-term safety studies because there is no theoretical basis”

                      So theory trumps evidence is what you’re saying. Is that really the way you think science works? You really want to continue in this vein?

                    4. mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 11:53PM|#
                      “So theory trumps evidence is what you’re saying. Is that really the way you think science works? You really want to continue in this vein?”

                      No, asshole, that’s not what HM posted and it’s not surprise that either you are stupid of venal enough to ‘misunderstand’.
                      Science works quite well; make a claim of some result from some process. Perform an experiment to find out if it is true.
                      So, asshole, what is your claim? And what experiments support that or those claims?
                      You see, you steaming pile of shit, no one here is dumb enough to accept your dissembling. Or your stupidity, and I’m betting on the latter.

                    5. “Perform an experiment to find out if it is true.”

                      My sentiments exactly, only I would go so far as to say that a “long-term study” is an experiment. HazelMeade said that there is no need to do a study coz the theory says so. Cart, horse. Got it?

                    6. mtrueman|5.9.15 @ 12:33AM|#
                      “My sentiments exactly, only I would go so far as to say that a “long-term study” is an experiment”
                      You’re stupidity is not surprising.
                      An experiment is a test of a proposed result. You’ve yet to propose a result, and of course we’re to presume you just sort of missed that requirement since you can’t read, right. Well, not really; it’s mostly since you’re an ignoramus.
                      So: Propose the result and then design an experiment that tests that result and also (most importantly) allows for proof that the claimed result is wrong; make it falsifiable.

                      “HazelMeade said that there is no need to do a study coz the theory says so. Cart, horse. Got it?”
                      No, shitpile, HM said you’ve made no claim to bother to debunk. Your stupidity is legendary, but are we to presume you can’t understand that?
                      BTW, I remember you claiming that falsifiability was ‘overrated’; I’m more than willing to accept that is your admission that you are an ignoramus and ‘you only post here ‘for yourself’:
                      mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                      “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.

                    7. “So: Propose the result and then design an experiment that tests that result and also (most importantly) allows for proof that the claimed result is wrong; make it falsifiable.”

                      You’re barking up the wrong tree. Chipotle is asking to see the results of long-term tests showing that GMO is safe. No such tests exist. I’m flattered but it’s not with my powers to design such tests, let alone pay for them. I have to confess I don’t see how your comments here have anything to do with what HazelMeade was saying or about what this has to do with your earlier concern over the long-term safety of water. You don’t seem to be mounting a coherent argument on why Chipotle is so unreasonable to demand long-term safety assurances.

                    8. See, that’s regretted to as the Precautionary Principle. The PP (ha I said PP) applies for extinction level events, such as the development of strong AI. To apply it to every scientific advance would ensure that mankind never advances at all.
                      Here are two examples: Prove to me that internal combustion engines will never harm anyone. Well, you can’t, because they do. So, all the benefits of modern farm and transportation machinery never appear.
                      Second: Domestication of farm animals. All kinds of diseases come from living with animals, but I think the food and labor advantages our species acquired from that advancement are worth the cost.
                      You are basically asking people to prove a negative: That zero harm can come from this technology. That is simply not possible.

                    9. Referred not regretted. Damn autospell

                    10. And, beyond advancing the precautionary principle, you have no specific reason to object to this technology. You say something might go wrong, without ever stating a specific outcome that you fear. Such an objection is impossible to answer.

                    11. “And, beyond advancing the precautionary principle, you have no specific reason to object to this technology.”

                      I don’t know the people who develop the technology or give their regulatory stamp of approval to it. I don’t trust them. What have they done to earn your trust?

                    12. What have they done to earn your distrust? What, exactly, is your, or Chipotles’ concern? That this is new, and therefore scary. That’s it. That is your entire argument: I don’t understand it, and I don’t know that bad things won’t happen; therefore, even though people who do understand it assure me that it is safe, I oppose it.
                      Although that’s not even the real reason (drink). People oppose it because of two primary reasons: One, it’s evil corporations making money, and two, I’ll get more social signaling creed for opposing it. With maybe some feeling that, hey, I already got mine, let those poor brown people starve and get diseases, because 90% of the population should die as a sacrifice to Gia, just not me or mine.

                    13. “You are basically asking people to prove a negative: That zero harm can come from this technology. That is simply not possible.”

                      You seem confused. First, it’s not me who is asking anyone to prove anything. It is Chipotle asking to see evidence that GMO is safe over the long-term. It’s been established already that GMO is safe over the short-term, and I don’t see anyone objecting to these studies. Second, zero harm is not the issue. Safety over the long term is what Chipotle is asking for.

                      You seem to feel that GMO is necessarily dangerous over the long term.

                    14. No, I’m saying that GMO has obvious benefits, benefits that could help millions of people, and you don’t want other people to be able to take advantage of that technology. Your reason for this position seems primarily to be that no one can prove no harm over x amount of yrs. You offer no example of what might go wrong.

                    15. mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 7:28PM|#
                      “Chipotle’s number one reason for eschewing GMO is the lack of long-term safety studies.”

                      No one here (outside of a couple of other luddites) is willing to accept a stupid statement like that as other than a stupid statement.

                    16. “No one here (outside of a couple of other luddites) is willing to accept a stupid statement like that as other than a stupid statement.”

                      It came directly from the author, remember the guy enthralled by the independence of the FDA? That guy.

                    17. mtrueman|5.9.15 @ 12:35AM|#
                      “It came directly from the author, remember the guy enthralled by the independence of the FDA? That guy.”

                      Shitpile, I’m not as stupid as you. Non-sequiturs only show how stupid you are and require no response from me.
                      Fuck off.

              2. It bares repeating:
                This is the sort of ignoramus you’re engaging:

                mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                See, he’s so far above the discussion, he’s just here to see his name in print!
                This asshole’s lies are lies.

                1. “This asshole’s lies are lies.”

                  Think more, post less. We’ll all be better off if you follow my advice.

                  1. Here’s what you’re dealing with:

                    mtrueman
                    5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                    “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                    This asshole’s lies are lies.
                    trueman, I’m gonna jam that quote down your throat every time I see a post from you.

                    1. “I’m gonna jam that quote down your throat every time I see a post from you.”

                      My key weapon is surprise, no strike that. My key weapon is boring you all to tears.

                    2. Your fantasy is that anyone cares about your ‘weapon’ as opposed to your stupidity.
                      Now, tell us again how you ‘don’t care’ after posting ten times claiming you ‘don’t care’!
                      I’ll be happy cram that idiocy down your throat again.

                    3. “Now, tell us again how you ‘don’t care'”

                      I don’t care. Happy?

      3. Who dare question the pronouncements of the FDA? Only idiots it seems.

        That’s odd coming from a guy who would leave all sorts of economic say-so up to government bureaucracies.

        1. “That’s odd coming from a guy…”

          Not odd, coz I’m not that guy. What’s odd is the libertarians who believe that the FDA is an independent scientific body, largely, it seems, coz they promote GMO.

          1. mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 7:34PM|#
            “What’s odd is the libertarians who believe that the FDA is an independent scientific body, largely, it seems, coz they promote GMO.”

            What’s not odd is one more stupid statement from trueman.
            Hint: Even the FDA can be right.

  7. Frankenfoods are eating my brain!
    I’m going insane!
    Therefor, y’all must refrain!
    The insane brain stays mainly in the plane!
    The plain truth is GMO is a pain!
    GMOs are eating my brain!
    This is the song that never ends…
    And it goes on and on my friends…

  8. We’re going to spend a shitload of money in the hopes that we might possibly make a fuckton of money.

    /Chipotle

    1. I personally don’t have anything against a business that makes this decision because they want to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses.

      I mean, the entire dietary supplement/organic food industry are no different, in that they rely entirely on widespread misconceptions and ignorance of ‘how shit works’.

      What i would object to is if they attempt to get Government to force further labeling/regulations that promote this kind of ignorance.

      1. I personally don’t have anything against a business that makes this decision because they want to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses.

        This. I mean, the lies and distortions are insulting to my inteligence, but the people who fall for this shit have no intelligence to insult.

        There’s always been snake-oil salesmen, the anti-GMO pushers are just the newest incarnation of them. If people are dumb enough to fall for it and are willing and able to spend twice the money because of hysterical horseshit that’s their problem.

      2. More power to them. Either they’ll start raking in cash or they’ll start tanking because their food costs got too high. Then again, idiots are always good for throwing away extra money for “healthier” food.

      3. I’d say that it’s only most of the dietary supplement industry. There are some things sold as “dietary supplemets” that are actually effective and/or interesting and amusing. Basically drugs that the FDA hasn’t gotten around to or can’t be bothered to regulate.

        1. ” it’s only most of the dietary supplement industry.”

          yes. Its the most *profitable* part.

      4. “they want to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses.”

        I don’t see how Chipotle is capitalizing on ignorance here. Chipotle is asking to see long-term studies showing the safety of GMO. That’s a plea for knowledge, not a capitalization on ignorance. Those who oppose the effrontery of Chipotle, almost everyone bothering to comment here, are arguing that Chipotle’s plea is illegitimate and ignorance about GMO’s long-term safety is the only natural, correct and maybe even desirable state of affairs.

        1. mtrueman|5.9.15 @ 12:46PM|#
          “they want to capitalize on the ignorance of the masses.”
          “I don’t see how Chipotle is capitalizing on ignorance here. Chipotle is asking to see long-term studies showing the safety of GMO”

          And admitting you don’t see it is quite revealing, as in admitting your knowledge of science ended at the approximate 6th grade level.

    2. Hey, no man ever went broke betting on the stupidity of progs.

      1. Dammit. I came back here to make that exact comment.

      2. I don’t know if progs is the right word. Maybe it’s just me thinking that words mean things. Seems rather odd to consider yourself progressive if you are opposed to pretty much all progress. Those people are retrogressive.

        1. “Seems rather odd to consider yourself progressive if you are opposed to pretty much all progress. Those people are retrogressive.”

          True, but in San Fran, those who promote 19th transport, and preserving every damn building more than 10 years old self-label as “progressive”. And they’re proud of being hypocrites.

          1. Damn:
            ‘…promote 19th *CENTURY* transport…’

  9. Oh boy, a GMO free-for-all in the making.

    /sits back and enjoys artisanal omelette.

  10. This includes the Food and Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the European Commission, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many more.

    I don’t know how you could call the first three “independent”, but the point still stands that GMOs have been widely and loudly proven to be safe.

    1. “GMOs have been widely and loudly proven to be safe…”

      Did Bailey post a link to a study showing the long-term safety of GMO’s? I didn’t see it. That was Chipotle’s chief concern.

      1. mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 8:04PM|#
        “Did Bailey post a link to a study showing the long-term safety of GMO’s?”

        Are you really stupid enough to think there’s a long term study showing the safety of anything? Please show us the long term study showing the safety of water.

        1. “Please show us the long term study showing the safety of water.”

          Long term studies don’t grow on trees. They cost money. If you’re willing to put up the cash, I’m sure you could eventually have your proof that water is safe over the long term.

            1. Oh, good. The idjit returns!
              Tell us how GMOs are dangerous!
              BTW, I posted “water”, not “demineralised water”. But I’m sure you knew that.

              1. Gee. I thought water was two parts “H” and one part “O”. Or were you referring to mineralized water? In which case there are many long-term studies but they focus on the effects of contaminants present in the water (natural ones such as arsenic and uranium as well as man-made ones such as disinfection byproducts).

                1. Chumby|5.9.15 @ 6:44AM|#
                  “Gee. I thought water was two parts “H” and one part “O”.”

                  Gee. You’re mom told you that you were clever. Your mom lied. Fuck off.

  11. By Feeding Bogus GMO Fears, Chipotle Treats Customers Like recognizes that its customers are Idiots

    1. Hey, not all of us are idiots.

  12. People are nuts about this issue. Improving food is what we’ve been doing for thousands of years. Only now we’re much better at it and are also insanely better at determining whether the changes are beneficial. It doesn’t mean there’s no possible risk, it just means that there’s nothing inherently wrong with modifying foods.

    I bet if Monsanto modified corn in such a way that it totally cured cancer, a significant number of people would protest the corn’s introduction into the marketplace.

    1. I bet if Monsanto modified corn in such a way that it totally cured cancer, a significant number of people would protest the corn’s introduction into the marketplace.

      See also: golden rice. These neo-luddite hand-wringing waterheads would rather see hundreds of thousands die to malnutrition and disease than admit that the KKKORPORASHUNZ are actually the good guys in some ways.

      1. “See also: golden rice. These neo-luddite hand-wringing waterheads would rather see hundreds of thousands die to malnutrition and disease than admit that the KKKORPORASHUNZ are actually the good guys in some ways.”

        I once stumbled across a forum of Marxist stupidity in which everybody was heatedly engaged in ripping apart Norman Borlaug for saving billions of lives with biotech in countries like Mexico and India. Judging from the comments, their one and only platform seemed to be that he used science and capital to save the lives of billions of people who should have died of starvation so the Marxists could dance on their graves and scapegoat their deaths on capitalist greed.

        But then, who am I to judge the wonderful people who gave us the Holodomor and Mao’s forced famines?

        1. Yeah, the left fucking hates the “Green Revolution” for some unfathomable reason.

          I don’t understand why. It was a bunch of technocrats spreading scientific farming techniques around the world and massively boosting crop yields. You would think they would love it.

          The enviros hate it because of the wholo mono-culture, pesticides thing, but the Marxists should be totally on board.

          1. Like I say above. A lot of today’s self identified “progressives” are really retrogressive in most ways. The original progressives may have been nasty elitist technocrats, but at least they were in some sense for human progress.

            1. You’re stuck in the past, Zeb. Literally everyone knows now that words mean what we say they mean at the time they’re said. It’s all part of the evolution of language.

            2. “The original progressives may have been nasty elitist technocrats, but at least they were in some sense for human progress.”

              V I Lenin had the best of intentions. Look where they led him. Since when did Libertarians value the judgements of progressives like Lenin or bureaucracies like the FDA over the market place, where an outfit like Chipotle has to sink or swim?

              1. What? I’m just making an observation. Lenin was for human progress. He was completely wrong about it in a very destructive way, but he was for it.

                1. “Lenin was for human progress…”

                  No argument there. Had there been GMO in his time, no doubt he’d have been in total agreement. The Marxism I’m familiar with favours GMO.

          2. “but the Marxists should be totally on board.”

            You know any Marxists who aren’t?

            1. So you just blew by the 2:17 comment and went right for the reply? Fantastic.

              1. Here’s what you’re dealing with:

                mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                1. “mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#”

                  Try as you might, you can’t improve on the original.

              2. I was responding to HazelMeade, someone who here who is worth taking seriously. The 2.17 comment, is not to be taken seriously, although if it impressed you, there’s nothing stopping you from responding.

                1. mtrueman|5.8.15 @ 7:19PM|#
                  “I was responding to HazelMeade, someone who here who is worth taking seriously.”

                  Just so you know what sort of a dissembling asshole you’re dealing with:

                  1. Oh, darn; here it is:

                    mtrueman|5.4.15 @ 12:59AM|#
                    “[?] What you haven’t fathomed is that I’m so morally depraved that my deserved rep here doesn’t bother me or interest me in the least. I post for myself; your feelings about me are of no concern.”

                    Yes, he’s only posting to see his name in print.

    2. I have always thought there should be more statues of Norm Borlaug around the world than anyone else…

      1. ^^^This.

        The fact that he’s not a household name is a fucking tragedy.

      2. Part of the reason why I (like to) believe in heaven.

        So there’s a place where the guys you stumble across in life, whom no one knows by name, but without whom life would untolerably horrible for lots of people.

        A place where Borlaug, Farnsworth, Ritchie and similar get to bask in the karmic glow of warm full bellies and glowing computer monitors the world over.

        Never knew any of them personally, but I get the impression that they were the kind of people who would rather have thousands of computers logged on and people eating meals than a single statue.

        Makes me feel better as a rational human being than just chucking them in the ground and forgetting about them.

    3. Exactly. These people seem to be ok with us doing genetic modifications the old-fashioned, haphazard, slow way. They hate efficiency and progress because it means they have to change and learn new things. So we can just add GMOs to the growing list of things that ignorant people fear with nuclear energy, climate change, vaccinations, alien abductions and the vast right-wing conspiracy.

    4. “People are nuts about this issue…”

      Is it safe over the long term? I don’t think that’s a nutty question. Have you answered it to your satisfaction? How? I don’t see any studies on the issue. How did you arrive at the conclusion that GMO is safe over the long term?

    5. Is there a link to information regarding the Monsanto cancer curing corn?

      1. Chumby|5.8.15 @ 9:14PM|#
        “Is there a link to information regarding the Monsanto cancer curing corn?”

        See? Isn’t this cute?
        Fucking ignoramuses like Chumby get to claim they asked for ‘proof’ and didn’t get it!
        Hey, Chumby! Eat cow shit and die!

        1. That was what was implied so I wanted clarification/evidence.

          Ever been to a farm before? Ever work at a farm? I’m not sure poetry books provide an adequate substitute.

          Eat Amsoc’s feces and wash it down with agent orange 2,4-D.

  13. It all boils down to the widespread worship of the iconic phrase “All Natural”.

    Arsenic is natural. Botulism is perfectly natural. For humans – social apes – squatting naked in trees, picking parasitic insects off of our relatives, and plotting to murder the Alpa Male and rape his females is natural.

    Natural is overrated.

    Don’t even get me started on “Organic”. Want to impress me? Show me an inorganic banana.

    1. I’ll give you a batch of organic cookies made with carbon-free sugar.

    2. Show me an inorganic banana

      First take out the carbon…oh wait.

      1. My Mom used to have an inorganic banana as part of the center-piece of the dining room table.

        It was good for using as a makeshift pistol when playing war/coyboys and indians/cops and robbers/ etc.

      2. I know it is really confusing, but sometimes words have more than one meaning.

        Not that organic is terribly meaningful when applied to food. It’s pretty arbitrary. I have a friend who runs an organic farm and he uses plenty of toxic and unpleasant stuff.

      1. Should I laugh or cry? I can’t decide.

        1. Both good choices.

    3. Show me an inorganic banana.

      Ceci n’est pas une banane

      The banana is only in your mind.

    4. Sharks are natural as fuck, and they’ll fuck your shit RIGHT up.

    5. And this is why Whole Foods tops the FDA recall list…

      http://www.vocativ.com/culture…..calls-fda/

    6. Organic = Expensive, as far as I can tell.

      1. In my personal experience some of the best produce is from small organic farms. Probably far more to do with the care taken in growing things than anything to do with organic. Grocery store organic stuff is usually worse than the regular stuff and expensive for no good reason.

        1. “”Probably far more to do with the care taken in growing things than anything to do with organic.””

          Correct. You would be unable to tell the difference between a large-scale ‘organic’ farm and a conventional one.

    7. plotting to murder the Alpa Male and rape his females is natural.

      I was plotting to do this around here, but the closest thing Warty has to a female is NutraSweet, and… ewww.

    8. I don’t eat bananas. I prefer banana-flavoured energy bars made from tofu.

  14. Of course conventional farming techniques are non sustainable. Potash and potassium in particular will be a problem. Not to mention the problems we have with top soil loss. Traditional mono cropping techniques simply won’t be sustainable long term.

    Yes, this will probably mean food prices will increase some.

    Jeremy Grantham has done some very good research on this topic.

    1. Well, then it’s great that Roundup Ready crops have enabled farmers to switch to no-till farming.

    2. Kroneborge|5.8.15 @ 1:54PM|#
      “[…]Yes, this will probably mean food prices will increase some.[…]”

      That is among the most ignorant comments posted so far: ‘Something will happen sometime in the future’.
      OK, K, tell us when and by how much, or STFU.

    3. That’s fine. Just as long as the government saves enough of those wonderful grapes they confiscate we’ll never starve.

  15. trying to appeal to these nuts is a mug’s game. they’ll be completely believing some other nonsense as they wake up in a new pond each day. but good luck selling your rice packed gluten free non gmo vegan fair trade sustainable recycled Hillary! fart food.

    1. I like the cut of your jib!

    2. Hillary has come out in favor of GMOs:
      http://timesofsandiego.com/pol…..eral-help/

  16. Apparently, Just Label It is targeting any company that spends money fighting required GMO-labeling initiatives.

    Ironically, like Chipotle, the major corporate supporters of GMO-label initiatives (including HAIN, NATURE’S PATH), are propagating scientific myths to further their own self-interests.

  17. Well, I’m boycotting SmartBalance because of their anti-GMO stupidity, so now I have to boycott Chipotle :(.

    Fortunately, there is an alternative: Moe’s

    http://www.moes.com/

    Basically the same thing as Chipotle, but without the pretentious bullshit.

    1. Moe’s has certainly jumped-on the anti-hormone, grass-fed, natura meat and organic tofu bandwagon – but definitely less whacked than Chipotle.

      1. I will say that grass-fed beef has a different fat profile than grain fed, so there can be a legitimate reason for preferring it.

        1. Correct – the organoleptic properties are different, but those who “prefer” it for those reasons have no palate.

          /Iowan

            1. Nice.

        2. I don’t mind the grass-fed. It’s also got a different flavor profile. I don’t know why anyone would think there’s an environmental benefit though. If they are out there feeding on range land they are eating wildlife habitat.

        3. I will say that grass-fed beef has a different fat profile than grain fed, so there can be a *SLIGHTLY MORE* legitimate reason for preferring it.

          FIFY

          It’s been pretty thoroughly debunked that ‘conventional’ lipid profiles were the smoking gun of the several handful of disease ascribed to it.

          /Hoosier

          1. + 1 lipid chemist…

          2. And even if not, a handful of fish oil tabs are way cheaper than grass-fed beef.

            1. I like the taste of grass fed beef. But can’t generally be bothered to find it or pay the premium.

            2. That is very true, but I was simply pointing out that there are differences between grass-fed and grain-fed on the consumer end, unlike GMOs, namely that there IS one.

              1. I was simply pointing out that there are differences between grass-fed and grain-fed on the consumer end, unlike GMOs, namely that there IS one.

                IDK, the difference is very similar if you ask me; marginal differences in nutrient profiles and marginally different effects in overall health/well-being/satiety/caloric content.

                At least with grass-fed beef the difference lies with macro nutrients rather than micronutrients and trace contaminants, but it’s not as if a steak a day brought you to your first heart attack and a grassfed steak a day (or even a grassfed steak and a handful of grams of fish oil) is going to stave off your second.

                1. Not saying it would prevent heart attacks, be better for the environment, invigorate your chi, or any shit like that, just saying it isn’t a good analogy for GMOs. It’s not like I fork out the dough for the grass-fed stuff, but a discerning gourmand could tell the difference between a grass-fed burger and grain-fed, but not the difference between the GMO or non-GMO french fries to go with it.

                  1. a discerning gourmand could tell the difference between a grass-fed burger and grain-fed, but not the difference between the GMO or non-GMO french fries to go with it.

                    I’ll bet you $100 I can find someone who will claim they can taste the difference. And that the GMOs taste bad.

                    1. I can sense GMOs ’cause my aura gets contaminated near them. I have to align my chakras after I’m around frankenfoodz.

              2. Also, as Dr Capper showed definitively in 2012 and 2013, and ha been supported by her colleague White in 2014 and Nieumer in 2014, per KG of beef produced, grass fed beef is far harder on the environment than grain-fed. So if you want to ruin the environment faster, buy grass fed. 🙂

    2. Basically the same thing as Chipotle, but without the pretentious bullshit.

      Just exchanged for the ‘Where everybody knows your name’ bullshit. And, at least in the one I’ve visited, no beer.

      1. They don’t even sell Duff?

    3. Basically the same thing as Chipotle, but without the pretentious bullshit.

      You know, I keep hearing that this place or that place is “better than Chipotle”, but the alternative places that I’ve tried aren’t able to match whatever spices or flavoring that I like from Chipotle burritos. It’s a matter of taste, and I’m not a pretentious Messican Food Snob, so I don’t feel the need to eat “Real Authentic Messican Food?”.

      I can and will eat there as often as possible.

  18. Somebody should start protesting outside of all Chipotles as long as they have any corn still on the menu. There is no such thing as non-GMO corn.

    1. They’ll just start calling it maize.

      1. Even maize only exists because of 6,000 years of genetic modification (the slow and unpredictable “natural” kind)

        1. Yeah, but it was eaten by the noble savages, so it’s inherently better. Because magic, or spirit animals or some shit.

      2. Zea mays.

  19. The only problem I see here is that this will help perpetuate the ridiculousness of anti-GMOness. Chipotle is just catering to their customer base of idiots so I don’t really blame them. They are in business to make money.

    As for the dishonesty, so what? Nearly every word of advertising in the world is misleading in some way or other. If people aren’t bothering to educate themselves so as to make informed decisions there really isn’t much that can be done about it.

  20. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  21. “The company states, “In our quest to serve the best ingredients, we decided to remove the few GMOs in our food so that our customers who choose to avoid them can enjoy eating at Chipotle.” Basically, this is a marketing ploy aimed at appealing to customers who have been bamboozled into thinking that organic is good and biotech is bad.”

    Almost all the soy out there GMO, so no basically GMO’s means soy free. The only thing that still has soy on Chipotle’s menu is the tofu. They used to have soy or soybean oil in practically every single thing on the menu.

    As someone with a soy allergy, Chipotle is like the greatest thing ever. I can actually eat some fast food again!

    A lot of people who are allergic to peanuts are also allergic to soy, too. They’re both legumes, etc.

    I suspect Chipotle is making a lot of money off of people with allergies, and as someone with an allergy, I couldn’t be happier about that. Yeah, they’re giving the people what they want–even if non-GMO and “organic” are simply marketing.

    Whole Foods is the same way. I don’t believe the government should force people to label products with GMO in them–but I eat Whole Foods prepared foods because they label their prepared food and tell us if it has soy, etc. in it.

    1. FDA mandates labeling of soy allergens, so that information is readily available on any food package.

      Also, if you are using “non-GMO” as a surrogate for soy free, you are mistaken (particularly at Whole Foods). While technically correct that most soy is GMO, non-GMO options are available (including, but not limited to, organic).

      Anti-soy, corn, and “big” Ag are basic tenets of the movement, so certainly no accident that soy is being systematically removed.

      1. I have to second this. Just because Chipotle is going GMO free doesn’t mean they are getting rid of soy-based products. They may have found a non-GMO supplier for soy products.

        1. “Just because Chipotle is going GMO free doesn’t mean they are getting rid of soy-based products.”

          That would interesting except that Chipotle has gotten rid of all soy in all of their products except for the tofu.

          It’s generally extremely difficult to find bakers, for instance, who don’t use soybean oil in flour tortillas–or anything else. I’ve looked in three different grocery stores lately–Vons, Albertsons, and Wal-Mart–and none of them carried any brand of bread or hot dog rolls that didn’t have soy.

          Chipotle has gotten rid of them all. This is something hypothetical I’m thinking about. Chipotle has gotten rid of all soy based products (except tofu) because almost all the soybeans produced these days are GMO.

          It used to be that they couldn’t put the word “organic” on this stuff before–but then they made it so x percent of your product can be non-organic and they can still call it organic. That was mostly to let soybean oil in–it’s so much less expensive than other kinds of oil.

          Hell, soy is mostly used for animal feed. To make cheap meat, you use the cheapest feed available. The industrial shit they have to do to soybean oil to make it edible is frightening enough by itself–even if I weren’t allergic to it.

          Anyway, I used to look at Chipotle’s allergen menu before, and there wasn’t anything on their menu that didn’t have some form of soy in it. Now the only thing that has soy in it is the tofu.

          See for yourself:

          https://chipotle.com/allergens

          1. “This is [isn’t] something hypothetical I’m thinking about. Chipotle has gotten rid of all soy based products (except tofu) because almost all the soybeans produced these days are GMO.”

            FIXED!

            Incidentally, you’ll notice they make a big point on that menu of stating “We do not use eggs, mustard, peanuts, tree nuts, sesame, shellfish, or fish as ingredients in our food.”

            Honestly, I think for a lot of people with peanut and soy allergies out there, hearing that Chipotle has gone non-GMO is a signal that us allergy people can start investigating whether their food is safe to eat–because we can’t eat anywhere else.

            It’s gotten so much worse after the government started pushing chain restaurants to get rid of trans fats. That basically meant switching to soybean oil for almost all of them–and that’s made practically impossible for peanut and soy allergy people to eat out.

            I saw a statistic once that said up to 15% of Americans believe they have a food allergy. That’s 45 million potential customers for Chipotle–and the other chains aren’t doing much to go after them. Soy/Peanut allergies are the most common food allergy.

            Yeah, I know. Anti-GMO is marketing without science. It’s also an effective way of differentiating yourself in the market and marketing to people who really care about this stuff. I’ve eaten at Chipotle twice this week! It’s so nice not to have to make everything myself.

            1. What sort of oil are they using then? Because almost all the corn and canola is also GMO.

              1. In a press release (from my faulty memory), they said they were using canola for their tortillas, and they’re frying their vegetables in safflower oil.

                Apparently, they couldn’t get one oil in large enough quantities to supply all their stores, so they’re substituting with more than one oil.

                1. Found it!

                  “So instead of using one oil for the majority of its needs, Chipotle now uses sunflower to fry its chips and tortillas, while a non-G.M.O. rice bran oil will be mixed into rice and used to fry fajita vegetables.

                  The flour tortillas posed a bigger problem. “The shortening had an oil in it that was derived from soybeans,” said Chris Arnold, Chipotle’s spokesman. “We won’t use lard for tortillas because of our vegan and vegetarian customers, and we can’t use palm oil because of the environmental impact.”

                  So Chipotle’s flour tortillas are now made with a non-G.M.O. canola oil, which costs more, and the company said last week that it might have to raise prices slightly this year.”

                  —-New York Times

                  http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04…..-food.html

      2. “FDA mandates labeling of soy allergens, so that information is readily available on any food package.”

        Maybe you didn’t notice I was talking about prepared foods?

        Maybe you think I’m arguing for FDA labeling?

        Maybe you weren’t responding to me?

        I don’t know.

        1. You know who else doesn’t know?

        2. Not a challenge Ken – nothing in my post was intended to be contentious – only responding to the comment that “basically non-GMO means soy free” and frankly, given Whole Foods’ track record I have ZERO faith in their labeling. I certainly didn’t believe you were arguing for FDA labeling.

          1. “Almost all the soy out there GMO, so no basically GMO’s means soy free.”

            Well, I chopped up that sentence pretty good!

            I meant to write, “Almost all the soy out there is GMO, so no GMOs basically means soy free”.

            It’s really, really hard to find organic soy*. The things we see that are labeled “organic” and contain soy are labeled “organic” despite having GMO soy in them. You can label your food “organic” if 95% of it isn’t GMO. You can say it’s made with organic ingredients if only 70% of it is non-GMO.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Organic_certification #United_States_of_America

            Whenever you see something with soy in it labeled “organic”, I’d bet 99.9% of the time, it’s the soy part that constitutes the 5% of the product that isn’t organic/isn’t GMO.

            Tell me something is 100% non-GMO, and it is a really, really good bet that it’s also soy free.

            *They used to chuck soybean oil. It’s a byproduct of making animal feed. Asians would ferment it into soy sauce with other additives, but they chucked it as the byproduct of making soy meal for animal feed for since…forever.

            I believe it’s a modern process that makes soy oil edible. Anyway, calling it “organic” after you subjected it to what it takes to make it edible in the first place would be incredibly misleading–if not fraudulent. What you’re ingesting by way of the processing chemicals is probably worse than what you’re not ingesting by way of herbicide.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexane#Uses

            1. At least some spy sauces are brewed and ages versus chemical solvent extraction:
              http://www.edenfoods.com/store…..glass.html

              1. I used a bad pronoun. It should have read:

                “They used to chuck soybean oil. It’s a byproduct of making animal feed. Asians would ferment it into soy sauce with other additives, but they chucked [soy oil] as the byproduct of making soy meal for animal feed.”

                Yes, soy sauce is fermented, etc.

                I was talking about soybean oil. The reason soybean oil is so cheap is because it’s a byproduct of creating soybean meal, and soy meal is in demand because it’s about the cheapest from or high protein animal feed available.

                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_meal

                That’s one of the reasons why it’s in almost everything. It’s the byproduct of something that’s already cheap. Soy meal was in demand before anybody knew how to make the oil. Prior to the development of the industrial and heavy chemical treatment required to make soybean oil edible, almost no one used it for food. Now between government pushing against trans fats and the sheer cheapness of the stuff, the use of soybean oil has become so prolific…

                1. Take a look at this allergen menu from Burger King.

                  http://www.bk.com/pdfs/allergens.pdf

                  If you look at the handfull of items that don’t have soybean oil? Make sure you also see this caveat up at the top:

                  “Products fried in a shared fryer include but may not be limited to: Fish Filet, Pork Sausage, Crispy Chicken Patty, Chicken Nuggets, Original Chicken Patty, Spicy Original Chicken Patty, Hash Browns, French Toast Sticks and Onion Rings. In Hawaii, Portuguese Sausage and Spam are also fried in a shared fryer. Our fryer oil contains: corn, canola, soy and/or cottonseed oils.”

                  If I trust the menu from a month ago, I can have the apple slices and an order of oatmeal. And a Coke!

                  They should save the trouble of printing the menu and just warn people with soy/peanut allergies not to eat at Burger King (or any other fast food restaurant since they’re all the same with soybean oil).

                  1. Maybe they should just warn against eating at Burger King.

  22. What about patenting seeds as Monsanto has done? Is no one troubled by this? Reverse engineering a preexisting biological organism and claiming it as your intellectual property seems a stretch. How long before a company patents the Persian cat? As geneticists become more proficient, how long before some multinational owns the rights to a particular shade of blue eyes? I’m a Luddite for being concerned about the long term ramifications of this trend? Do we really want a company to own the rights to wheat? Corn? Food? That is what this debate is really about.

    Furthermore, as companies like Monsanto “innovate” they also litigate, forcing non-GMO farmers to accept their terms or face bankruptcy fighting them in the courts. There are numerous examples of this – just check Monsanto’s website for details. This augers the day when most, if not all, farms will be GMO, essentially at the mercy of Monsanto and their partners. If the farmers are at their mercy then so are the rest of us who have to eat. What will happen to prices when two or three companies control the wheat harvest? I don’t like it. Humanity hasn’t needed Monsanto to grow crops and their seeds are not indispensable now. They are pulling every trick they can to make themselves indispensable but a population of 7 billion people suggests their precious patents are superfluous.

    I am not necessarily anti-GMO, but when it comes to owning the rights to biological organisms, I am definitely anti-patent.

    1. This is a dicey issue. It’s not cheap these days to crack the genome of a species–not if you are also trying to understand how everything works. And research into manipulating genes to get superior qualities is also no small endeavor. The argument for allowing a temporary monopoly in these cases is to allow the company putting in this effort to have a chance to reap the rewards of their work without being undercut by free riders who don’t have the costs to recoup.

      That said, the PTO gives patents to children who submit scribbled drawings in crayon, so the theoretical justification above isn’t the whole picture or, really, the reality. A patent still has to be novel and nonobvious.

    2. Not sure what this has to do with Chipotle’s labeling practice, but most libertarians seem to be all for scaling back our system of patents/IP/trademark. Nobody here is defending Monsanto or their practices – but it is ridiculous that people that the anti-GMO crowd yells MONSANTO!!! every time this topic comes up, like it’s some kind of magic phrase that wins an argument.

      1. Monsanto has earned criticism, but if it were the Salvation Army applying to patent an apple tree I would be just as opposed.

      2. It has, hero.

    3. Monsanto’s patents aren’t based-on “reverse engineering a preexisting organism” so that argument is irrelevant. Also, seeds, trait-enhanced, and new crops have been patented for some time – although I accept the premise that a level of oversight is needed (my concern is limited given the relatively short length of patent exclusivity).

      Regarding “forcing non-GMO farmers to accept their terms” – Monsanto does not FORCE farmers to plant their seeds. They do enforce patents, and the vast majority of lawsuits are based-on obvious infringement (e.g. saving seeds for replanting or sale to others).

      1. This. Plant varieties have been patentable for a while. People are constantly coming up with new rose varieties and patenting them. I think the latest thing is gladiolas. Of course anyone can grow more gladiolas in their backyard. They just can’t sell the corms of a patented variety.

        1. Can you sell the cut flowers of a patented plant? And propogate more for one’s own use? I’ve grown PVP stuff and you just can’t sell it as seed (or use it as parent stock if ypu breed). But you can save the seed and replant next growing season

          1. I imagine you could sell the cut flowers if you bought the seed, and you could save the seed if you were just growing it for yourself. But if you were saving the seed AND selling the cut flowers as a professional flower supplier, they might have a problem with that.

            1. Which is, of course, totally irrelevant to any debate over GMOs, but Chumby is a luddite and is poking here and there to see if s/he can find a ‘reasonable’ objection to them.
              But it’s all just in good humor, almost a joke, so long as Chumby can spread the BS. Sorta like Jon Stewart is a humorist if some one catches him on the BS. If not, it flows out as ‘knowing criticism’, right Chumby?

              1. Please point put the “BS” in my post above. Feel free to mix in a “shitstain” and perhaps an “eat cow shit” as well like a Mike Hihn bot with a slightly different set of ad hominems from which to choose.

            2. I guess we are talking flowers here (that have limited culinary uses) but I think growing a patented variety would be limited to personal aesthetic use and for competitions? And maybe sell the cut flowers if it were an annual?

      2. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding you. Are you saying Monsanto created new seeds out of thin air? Or did they manipulate the *existing* organism’s genetic material to produce a hybrid seed? Should a company be allowed to claim ownership of a product merely because they made a few adjustments to that product? If a mechanic invents a new steering wheel and installs it in your car does he now own your car? The seeds belong to mankind, either as a gift of nature or divinity. An entity claiming ownership of genetic material IT DID NOT CREATE is the issue.

        1. @RAHeinlein

          As far as Monsanto “forcing non-GMO farmers to accept their terms”, perhaps you are unfamiliar with the lawsuits resulting from GM seed contamination to organic farmers. Monsanto has a lab that tests the crops of non-customers. When they find that some of their genetic identifiers are present in a non-customer crop the farmer is sent a cease and desist letter which threatens litigation.

          In March 2011 a group of organic farmers filed suit in federal district court in New York, seeking a ruling prohibiting Monsanto from suing victims of gene contamination for unintentionally growing its products. Monsanto filed for dismissal in July 2011; Judge Naomi Buchwald ruled in favor of Monsanto on February 27, 2012, dismissing the suit. That ruling was affirmed by the Federal Court and the Supreme’s refused to hear the case.

          So, Monsanto seeds are thrown in the air by combines, contaminate the neighbors farm, and Monsanto *can* sue them out of business, even though the ‘patent-violation’ was unintentional. I am not saying they do sue in these cases. They generally don’t go after the small farms, but the small farms are not really a threat to their market share anyway. The fact is that they CAN sue (Schmeiser case) and this threat impels farmers to choose GMO over organic – play or pay. I’m not good with that.

          1. Fail:

            “The fact is that they CAN sue (Schmeiser case) and this threat impels farmers to choose GMO over organic – play or pay. I’m not good with that.”

            In Schmeiser’s case, it seems the wind blew those seeds off a truck and planted them in neat rows or some such, and no one was buying that sort of happy horseshit:
            ” trial judge found that with respect to the 1998 crop, “none of the suggested sources [proposed by Schmeiser] could reasonably explain the concentration or extent of Roundup Ready canola of a commercial quality” ultimately present in Schmeiser’s 1998 crop.[5]”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M….._Schmeiser
            I really wish this sort of crap wouldn’t get repeated.

          2. Percy Schmeiser’s crop was 96% pure Roundup Ready Canola.
            That was not an accident.
            His neighbors saw him spraying his fields with Roundup and turned him in. He purposely sprayed with roundup to select for the tolerant seeds that had crossed in from neighboring farms, saved the seed and then planted it the next year. He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew he was growing Roundup Ready canola.

            1. “He knew exactly what he was doing, and he knew he was growing Roundup Ready canola.”
              And, AFAIK, the thief still collect speaking fees for appearing at anti-GMO events in spite of loving GMO crops.
              I’m pretty sure the term ‘hypocrite’ was invented for assholes like this.

        2. The latter. The point is that companies already DO this with hybridization. It often takes a lot of work, (either GE or selective breeding) to breed in precisely the right combination of traits. It’s not that easy to just add just the ONE specific trait you desire to an already high-yielding hybrid. It can take years of outcrossing and crossing back in.

          Also keep in mind that patents aren’t forever.
          Some of the early varieties of GMO corn and soybeans are probably already out of patent.

    4. Saxondale|5.8.15 @ 3:27PM|#
      “What about patenting seeds as Monsanto has done?”

      What about some stalking horse for anti-GMO luddites?

  23. My lament, I found a fantastic heirloom pear called “Durondeau”. Alas, it’s only imported into the US by a single importer, having been grown “organically” in Argentina. So, I guess chalk one good thing up to fanatical psycho-hippies?

    http://www.fruitnet.com/americ…..ndeau-pear

    1. “Agro Roca’s agronomists have been working for several years to identify and cultivate promising new ? and reintroduce old – varieties for the organic market, CF Fresh said.”

      “fanatical psycho-hippies” with agronomy degrees working for Agro Roca?
      Well, if you insist.

  24. Time for Ron to weigh in on the side of unreasonable Nativism– the problem with Chipotle is not GMO, it’s corn as cuisine and chillies as a cultural institution.

    The last decade has seen America overrun by dehydrated corn meal mush masquarading under such names as ‘ tortillias’ and the imposition of pain as a food group by purveyors of such alien vegetables as Jalapenos and Habaneros.

    This is not why the mexican War was fought , and we still have to vanquish such corn-laden domestic blights as grits and scrapple.

    1. Ahem. Grits/polenta, cornbread, bourbon, even just plain corn on the cob. These are good things.

  25. But most consumers are idiots…

  26. Wow…….just……wow. And I thought the progressives/neocons cornered the market on being close minded. I wuz wrong!

    🙂

    1. We’re supposed to be open minded about something that is flamingly retarded?
      Um, no….

  27. GMO is a dangerous poison. Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, “developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.” The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. Everywhere GMO is being grown, food allergies, disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others have been skyrocketing in the human populations.

    There has been a drastic decline of crop-pollinating insects all over the world, and what this means for the future of the world’s food supply. Wild pollinators like bumblebees, butterflies, and beetles are basically disappearing. GMO industrial agricultural practices are causing this insect genocide. Pollinating insects in general, which include a wide range of insects and other animals, are simply vanishing from their normal habitats and foraging areas. That lower diversity and lower abundance of wild insects means less fruits and destruction of the diversity of plants and their fruits worldwide.

    1. A) Thoroughly discredited and now retracted study

      B) There’s no link between GMOs and Colony Collapse Disorder. Bt crops generally only kill insects that eat the crop or are within a short distance where pollon can drift, which is better than spraying pesticides, which farmers would otherwise have to do. Increasing crop yields should actually create more wild land for insects and other wildlive to live.

  28. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

    GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”?surviving deadly weed killers. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

    1. A) You know who else was deeply concerned about genetic purity?

      B) Roundup Ready crops allow farmers to practice no-till farming, which is better for soil health and avoids erosion and run-off. Roundup is far less toxic than other herbicides, and wlel, half that shit you listed is pure bullshit.

  29. GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

    GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield?the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

    1. A) Roundup is much less harmful that previously used herbicides. Monarch butterflies are decreasing because there is less milkweed around. Less acreage under cultivation would mean more wilkland for milkweed to grow.

      B) All genes are mixed between totally unrelated species. Humans share 60% of our DNA with bacteria. There’s nothing particularly novel about moving a gene from one species to another because genes are just code. They are not stamped with the essence of the species they came from. And there is no way you could identify which species a gene came from by looking at it’s code.

      C) That part is demonstrably false: http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/1282246/err162.pdf
      They not only increase yield,s they decrease pesticide use.

      D) Some bullshit propaganda from some anti-GMO nitwits.

      1. HM, see the Schmeiser lawsuit claims above, and for that matter turd and the claim that the Heritage Institute ‘proposed O-care!’
        The same lies get repeated endlessly by dedicated team players regardless of how often they are debunked.
        You do it here; this asshole will paste the same damn stuff the next time GMOs are a subject here.
        Man, it makes my ass tired!.

        1. I know. I feel like Sysiphus, with the endlessly recycled but easily debunked bullshit.
          And yet, it’s still a necessary task. These people are EVIL and they must be stopped.

          1. You have my support and admiration; I just get pissed.

      2. You belong in an asylum — not for psychological reasons, but for sheer stupidity.

    2. Can you please explain how rape (canola) is passing on its “herbicide tolerant” genes to weeds, which are unrelated species? Because if unrelated species can interbreed naturally with viable seed, then lab work is rather mute, isn’t it?

      Can you please name what “unpredictable side effects” are? Just name one.

      One of the great GMO research projects right now is to insert genes into rice so that the rice produces vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency is a real problem in very poor countries and causes blindness (we get around that in OEDC because of enriched flour). How does inserting vitamin A into rice cause a nutritional deficiency? And can you be more specific and name any nutritional deficiency that GMO foods have? Just name one.

      My grandmother made meticulous records of the family farm, so I have actual data on my farm going back many decades. The yields today are 50% to 75% more than they were pre-GMO. You will have a hard time convincing me that GMO does not increase yields, when I have data from my own farm that says it does, and does so dramatically. I have a friend in a developing country with a farm who uses locally sourced seed. He may have seen an increase in yields of 79% over the past decades, I don’t know. But even so, his yields today are lower than my farm’s yield’s 45 years ago. I am sure that moving from a water buffalo to a tractor could in fact double one’s yield. But as far as growing the same crops today, it is no contest.

      1. Jayson,
        I’m pretty sure you’re addressing people who are well-fed and sort of presume the world is; the concept of starving people is foreign to them, while the abstract, ‘signaling’ concept of opposing ‘industrial’ farming is more than acceptable; why should anyone make a profit?
        We have, simply, those who are engaged in the post-mosaic worship the mud momma and assume that intention is superior to any resultant starvation, compared to those who would rather people live.
        See mtrueman for a truly nasty example of such stupidity.

  30. The toxins associated with GMO should never be tolerated. NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE neurotoxins are absolutely the main factor causing the collapse of bee and pollinator populations along with other lethal chemicals, Agent Orange herbicides, glysophate, etc. When these poisons are banned as they were in Europe the bee populations start to recover. GMO neonicotinoids, roundup etc. MUST BE BANNED OUTRIGHT and all the farmers along with USDA, Biotech and chemical companies told to cease and desist from what they are doing.

    An even scarier prospect: the “BT” version of GMO soybeans and corn, (basically pesticides engineered directly into the plant )

    The “BT toxin” gene is put into the DNA of the corn in order for it to manufacture its own toxins that kill pests. The BT gene originated from a soil bacteria that also infiltrates the microflora (friendly digestive bacteria) in your gut. The Bt gene converts the microflora in your intestine into toxin-manufacturing machines.

    So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.

    1. Mark Donner|5.8.15 @ 7:26PM|#
      “[…]So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.”

      Sarc, right?
      If not, fuck off. Luddite lies really won’t fly here.

      1. He just posted the exact same shit that he posted on another thread about GMOs. Either a very dedicated troll or a mongoloid idiot.

        1. Bleevers can be very dedicated; see, oh, the AGW catastrophists and greeny-religionists in general.
          Jack andace was here several weeks ago doing a victory lap over a study that found fracking caused earthquakes. It took Gilmore and (can’t remember) to point out that yes, it does, as do water reservoirs, mining, and other large forces. Tiny earthquakes. All the time.
          But FRACKING CAUSES EARTHQUAKES! is enough for the bleevers.
          So this idjit, copy/pasting this screed, isn’t surprising.

      2. Wow, there is Simply Stoopid and the weapons grade variety……this half wit is definitely in the second ca

    2. Dear Mark Donner Party.

      You need to use the thicker, old fashioned tinfoil. The thin modern stuff does not work. =)

    3. Neonicotinoid pesticides have nothing to do with GMOs, unless you mean that we don’t need to use them because the GMOs are pest resistant.

      Secondly, Bt Toxin is used by “organic” farmers for pest control. They spray the bacterium on their crops. So when you eat organic food, you’re still getting Bt toxin producing genes in your gut.

    4. So, if I understand you correctly, instead of doing everything we can to increase food production to keep up with world population growth, and life expectancy increases, we should instead go back to the pre-GMO crop yields and let two or three billion people die. Is that what you are saying?

  31. ” Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors…”

    This is patently false and is repeated ad nauseam by people who do not understand basic statistics. The original rat study was retracted and the details are here:

    http://retractionwatch.com/201…..published/

    The fact that people like you keep posting this absurd and false claim makes it appear that YOU are on someone’s payroll…

  32. mtrueman: Words to the effect that ” my strategy is to bore you all to tears.”

    No contest.

  33. Kinda like the early greenies took up the anti-DDT banner after Rachel Carsons book. Problem was she exaggerated the negatives and now it’s impossible to find. Sadly it’s one of the best pesticides developed to stop Malaria carrying Mosquitos. The issue was it was frequently applied too heavily. At the proper rate, it’s safe. One of the Dow scientists used to go around giving talks about DDT and at the end would swallow a teaspoon of it just to show how safe it really was.

    What the left has really learned is to just scream loudly and frequently. Fear Mongering does work. Kinda like during sweeps month your local TV news runs lots of these type of stories, often supplied by some local ambulance chaser to reporters too lazy to do their homework.

    1. “What the left has really learned is to just scream loudly and frequently. Fear Mongering does work. Kinda like during sweeps month your local TV news runs lots of these type of stories, often supplied by some local ambulance chaser to reporters too lazy to do their homework.”

      The right isn’t without fault, assuming the right is those who claimed gay parents caused, oh, I don’t know, kids who didn’t hate gays. But the right didn’t have the press connections which the left used regularly.
      Alar! Love Canal! Unintended Acceleration! DDT! NYC Uninhabitable by (oops)! Fracking!
      Oh, the hell with it; add your own. There’s a ton of ’em.

  34. OT, since I’m still here and haven’t seen any note of it:

    “In one country, a Josef Stalin revival is under way”
    […]
    “GORI, Georgia ? In most of the world, Josef Stalin is remembered as a ruthless dictator responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people from famine, executions, political purges and Siberian prisons.”
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/wor…..248871.php

    Still behind a pay-wall; it’ll be available in a day or two. Amazingly, the promoters claim he was ‘nuanced’, which I guess means he chose to starve millions to death and shoot other millions.
    You know which other mass-murderer was ‘nuanced’?

  35. The anti-GMO people are such fools. There isn’t a single death anywhere in the world that is attributable to GMO food. Not one.

    Yet, some of these same people having swimming pools in their backyards, which kill hundreds of people a year. Some will even have motorcycles, which are incredibly deadly.

    Many of the same people will insist that combustion from human activity is causing the world to warm, even though that claim is a result of computer models that have been proven to be invalid.

    1. JaysonP|5.9.15 @ 12:07AM|#
      “The anti-GMO people are such fools. There isn’t a single death anywhere in the world that is attributable to GMO food. Not one.”

      You set the standard too low.
      There is not one single illness attributable to GMO food. Not one single observable effect at all. Not one.
      Except for the ‘effect’ of luddite panic.
      Not one.

      1. Why we need GMO Labels.

        http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/…..-labeling/

  36. By Feeding Bogus GMO Fears, Chipotle Treats Customers Like Idiots

    No, it gives customers what they want. If you want liberty, you have to accept that a lot of what people want is actually stupid.

    Feel free to educate the customers. Don’t complain when companies cater to their irrational whims in a free market.

  37. Nothing bailey writes ever seems especially libertarian. While he appeals to the top men at the FDA, it seems free minds and free markets are signaling a pretty huge demand for organic and gmo free products. I am not especially worried about gmo crops, but am more than happy to pay a little bit more to avoid them… Isn’t it great we have a system where “idiots” like myself can make that choice and we don’t need to depend on “experts” to make decisions for us?

    1. Hipneck|5.9.15 @ 1:12AM|#
      “Nothing bailey writes ever seems especially libertarian. While he appeals to the top men at the FDA, it seems free minds and free markets are signaling a pretty huge demand for organic and gmo free”

      Yeah, the market of you and various other ignoramuses. The rest of the world is more than happy to have food they didn’t prior to GMOs.
      Are we to presume you’re an ignoramus or someone truly evil? Which one is it?

    2. Haha, funny guy. Reason is going into the gutter because of some of their writers’ obsession with “free markets.” How about “free reign” for banks, hedge funds and PE firms? It’s a shame that these turds are contributors and staff writers for this once-decent magazine.

  38. I’m disappointed that Reason apparently has such a closed “mind” regarding GMOs. When a crop has its fundamental DNA altered to achieve some result, it is absurd to think that we know all the possible consequences. Genes seldom act alone. Often observable traits are the result of several genes acting in concert. So to assume that changing one gene cannot have deleterious consequences that are not immediately visible is cramming one’s head firmly up one’s ass.

    Here’s what we really know about GMOs: We don’t know much.

    The problem is that once an engineered genetic trait is released into the wild, we generally have no control over it. We may be advancing an evolutionary change by millions of years overnight – without a good understanding of unintended consequences. If the trait is beneficial to the organism it will likely be permanent, displacing the prior form. But at the outset we should understand that the organism doesn’t rely upon us for its success or failure. (cont)

  39. Suppose, just for example, that a particular form of GMO wheat caused prions to fold in a left-handed fashion preferentially to a right-handed fashion in humans and caused the wheat to grow much more vigorously. This would have no immediate consequences. People wouldn’t keel over dead after eating a GMO doughnut. But over a period of 50-100 years, the rate of Alzheimer’s might increase by a factor of 10, 100, 1000 or more, and the wheat might become a form of “brain poison” we would then be powerless to stop.

    The problem is not what we KNOW about GMOs. To some extent, it’s what we don’t know. But most of all, it’s what we’ve never even suspected.

    1. BambiB|5.9.15 @ 3:09AM|#
      “[…]The problem is not what we KNOW about GMOs. To some extent, it’s what we don’t know. But most of all, it’s what we’ve never even suspected.”

      No, the problem is idjits who favor the precautionary principle.
      Fuck off.

  40. It is indeed the case.Like Idiots

  41. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netjob80.com

  42. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.incomejoin70.com

  43. Nathaniel . although Stephanie `s rep0rt is super… I just bought a top of the range Mercedes sincee geting a check for $4416 this last four weeks and would you believe, ten/k last-month . no-doubt about it, this really is the best-job I’ve ever done . I actually started seven months/ago and almost straight away started making a nice over $79.. p/h….. ?????? http://www.Jobs-Cash.com

  44. Why criticize Chipotle for this move? Chipotle is doing business like gang busters in a responsible way; strict quality standards are what separates them from the lot of other fast food businesses. They as a company have deemed it appropriate to not serve GMO’s, but why is this a questionable act if they are acting within the private sector?

    1. “why is this a questionable act if they are acting within the private sector?”

      The twin articles of faith here are progress and capitalism. Chipotle, questioning the long-term safety of GMO, is undermining these articles and it has to be opposed.

      1. They’re simply acting on behalf of a large portion of their constituency. As for the other portion of their customer base that doesn’t care; no one is harmed. The beauty of this is that we don’t even need to argue about this. Time will tell. We’re voting with our dollars here, and in case you haven’t looked at Chipotle or Whole Foods stock lately; it’s pretty much a landslide. I respect your opinion too though; something to consider.

  45. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  46. Agree. The science is compelling. I’m not avoiding GMO foods.

    …but if we’re instilling ‘integrity’ into this conversation then let’s why the GMO producers are lobbying for preemptive laws against GMO foods so that States and individuals can never sue them?

    Don’t be just a GMO shill. Look at this from both sides.

  47. I think I am a GMO organism. Being conceived from two separate dna haplogroups. I hope my children don’t reject me and that they won’t eat me.

    1. But if they don’t mind eating GMO they may eat you.

  48. Why we need GMO labels

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/03/…..-labeling/

    1. You want to know whether something is GMO? Read the label. If you doubt, don’t by it.
      I’m tired of paying to warn luddites of one thing or another.

  49. Everytime I’ve gone into a Chipotle the type of people eating there has made me feel very uncomfortable. It’s knowing the thought of the taste of chipotle chilies that gets me in the door, it’s the super creepy customer base that sends me right back out. I don’t go anymore. Just buy my own chipotle, tastes a hella lot better anyway.

  50. Reason Magazine keeps hitting new lows with this ultra-libertarian crap. Even Nick Gillespie is contributing to this trash in his recent articles as well. I have a feeling the Koch brothers and the crap Tea Party that was hijacked by these goons away from its true founder, Ron Paul, are somehow behind this recent transformation. Yet another stupendously idiotic article from Reason over the past few months. Reason will serve to kill the Libertarian movement. Plain despicable…

  51. Do stupid people have integrity? More to the point, who cares? If there is a demand for stupid shit by a large amount of vain, superficial, superstitious airheads, then you’re bound to profit more by catering to them than debating them. If clothes make the man, then all men are stuffed shirts.

  52. I make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $40h to $86h? Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link… Try it, you won’t regret it!……
    http://www.work-cash.com

  53. If this is true: “Since biotech crops can protect themselves against insect pests, there is far less need for farmers to spray their crops.” It means the crops are creating pesticide! I want to avoid eating pesticide. Many comments imply that because no one has keeled over dead they are safe. I have heard of studies using rodents (one in Russia and another in South America) that indicate adverse reactions, some that span generations. Eating pesticides is not a good idea.

    Using genetic engineering could produce crops that are packed with beneficial nutrients. Monsanto makes crops that require less labor. What, we need to get rid of jobs! It won’t save any costs, these seeds aren’t cheap. Hundreds of farmers in India have committed suicide because using GMO drove them to bankruptcy.

    Monsanto is possibly the most hated corporation in the world. Instead of aiding their every move, the government should give them a RICO investigation.

  54. This ought to be celebrated as the triumph of markets based on free choice over regulation!
    The bottom line is that even though governments and the scientific consensus say that GMOs (and pesticides, BTW) don’t pose risks of concern to human health when used as currently regulated, many people don’t believe it (or they don’t believe the rules are enforced).

    The failure here is not on the part of laypeople to believe. The failure here is on the part of governments/the scientific community to convince or to be credible. People have the right to believe what they want…and business have the right to step in and give people what they want. This is called a free market.

  55. GMO and its associated lethal pesticides are dangerous poisons. Eating genetically modified corn (GM corn) and consuming trace levels of Monsanto’s Roundup chemical fertilizer caused rats to develop horrifying tumors, widespread organ damage, and premature death. rats exposed to even the smallest amounts, “developed mammary tumors and severe liver and kidney damage as early as four months in males, and seven months for females.” The animals on the GM diet suffered mammary tumors, as well as severe liver and kidney damage. Everywhere GMO is being grown, food allergies, disorders such as autism, reproductive disorders, digestive problems, and others have been skyrocketing in the human populations.

    There has been a drastic decline of crop-pollinating insects all over the world, and what this means for the future of the world’s food supply. Wild pollinators like bumblebees, butterflies, and beetles are basically disappearing. GMO industrial agricultural practices are causing this insect genocide. Pollinating insects in general, which include a wide range of insects and other animals, are simply vanishing from their normal habitats and foraging areas. That lower diversity and lower abundance of wild insects means less fruits and destruction of the diversity of plants and their fruits worldwide.

  56. GMOs cross pollinate and their seeds can travel. It is impossible to fully clean up our contaminated gene pool. Self-propagating GMO pollution will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. The potential impact is huge, threatening the health of future generations. GMO contamination has also caused economic losses for organic and non-GMO farmers who often struggle to keep their crops pure.

    GMOs increase herbicide use. Most GM crops are engineered to be “herbicide tolerant”?surviving deadly weed killers. Monsanto, for example, sells Roundup Ready crops, designed to survive applications of their Roundup herbicide. Between 1996 and 2008, US farmers sprayed an extra 383 million pounds of herbicide on GMOs. Overuse of Roundup results in “superweeds,” resistant to the herbicide. This is causing farmers to use even more toxic herbicides every year. Not only does this create environmental harm, GM foods contain higher residues of toxic herbicides. Roundup, for example, is linked with sterility, hormone disruption, birth defects, and cancer.

  57. GM crops and their associated herbicides can harm birds, insects, amphibians, marine ecosystems, and soil organisms. They reduce bio-diversity, pollute water resources, and are unsustainable. For example, GM crops are eliminating habitat for monarch butterflies, whose populations are down 50% in the US. Roundup herbicide has been shown to cause birth defects in amphibians, embryonic deaths and endocrine disruptions, and organ damage in animals even at very low doses. GM canola has been found growing wild in North Dakota and California, threatening to pass on its herbicide tolerant genes on to weeds.

    By mixing genes from totally unrelated species, genetic engineering unleashes a host of unpredictable side effects. Moreover, irrespective of the type of genes that are inserted, the very process of creating a GM plant can result in massive collateral damage that produces new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and nutritional deficiencies.

    GMOs do not increase yields, and work against feeding a hungry world.

    Whereas sustainable non-GMO agricultural methods used in developing countries have conclusively resulted in yield increases of 79% and higher, GMOs do not, on average, increase yields at all. This was evident in the Union of Concerned Scientists’ 2009 report Failure to Yield?the definitive study to date on GM crops and yield.

  58. The toxins associated with GMO should never be tolerated. NEONICOTINOID PESTICIDE neurotoxins are absolutely the main factor causing the collapse of bee and pollinator populations along with other lethal chemicals, Agent Orange herbicides, glysophate, etc. When these poisons are banned as they were in Europe the bee populations start to recover. GMO neonicotinoids, roundup etc. MUST BE BANNED OUTRIGHT and all the farmers along with USDA, Biotech and chemical companies told to cease and desist from what they are doing.

    An even scarier prospect: the “BT” version of GMO soybeans and corn, (basically pesticides engineered directly into the plant )

    The “BT toxin” gene is put into the DNA of the corn in order for it to manufacture its own toxins that kill pests. The BT gene originated from a soil bacteria that also infiltrates the microflora (friendly digestive bacteria) in your gut. The Bt gene converts the microflora in your intestine into toxin-manufacturing machines.

    So, to be clear, eating GMO corn products can cause your gut (which is primarily responsible for keeping you healthy) to turn into a breeding ground for tiny little pesticide factories inside your body, actively creating toxins which are designed to kill living things. These toxins are found in the blood and are readily transferred across the placenta to developing babies in the womb.

  59. The reason most of the people in this country are obese and malnourished is GMO’s. It makes me sick to read garbage like this. Chipotle did what every restaurant and every person in this country should do, reject GMO’s. Most countries will not even let the garbage the average American eats into their countries. Do not listen to the author of this article, I guarantee you he is obese and malnourished. It is a shame to have someone this brainwashed writing for a magazine like this.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.