Previously, I have reported that General Mills’ decision to “change” (but not really change) their original Cheerio cereal recipe to non-GMO, the cereal ended up being less nutritious.
Apparently, we should get familiar with the words “non-GMO” and “less nutritious” being in the same sentence.
Take a look at Kashi’s Go Lean Crisp! cereal. The company, which is actually owned by Kellogg’s, has recently received verification that the Go Lean cereal does not contain GMOs. The problem is, that change resulted in making the cereal less good for you.
 |
| Left: GMO-free; Right: GMO |
Luckily, the stores are still in the process of selling out the old GMO versions of the cereal, so a comparison is exceptionally easy. The box on the left is the new non-GMO verified box, while the box on the right is the old box containing GMO ingredients. If you can read the nutrition labels you will see that the non-GMO verified box has quite a different composition.
The calories went from 180 per serving to 190 per serving. Saturated fat when from 0 to 0.5g. The potassium went from 250 to 210. Soluble fiber dropped from 5 to 4g, while insoluble fiber went from 3 to 4. Sugar also increased from 10 to 11g. Phosphorus from 15% down to 10%. Iron went from 8% to 10% of RDA. Finally, magnesium went from 10 to 8% of RDA.
 |
| Kashi has added the GMO-free label as depicted. |
In other words: the non-GMO cereal is less healthy for you.
Just more proof that the war on biotechnology isn’t about health and nutrition and making food safer. It isn’t about protecting consumers from “big ag” or “evil Monsanto.”
All these companies dropping/printing 'buzz words' irritates me! I'll be sharing this post via facebook. Thanks for posting!
I just bought new Gluten-Free, non-GMO tires. Twice the Price. Drives a lot better, I think π
I am fully supportive of biotechnology, but stating that this cereal is less nutritious is misleading. These changes would have minimal to no impact on a person's nutritional status. I promote biotech as a part of my job, but I stick to the facts – this is sinking to a level that I have a tough time supporting.
My point is pretty simple: These companies are not making the switch to GMO-free cereals because it is better/healthier/higher quality/etc. for the consumers. Rather, they're willing to cave to anti-science fear-mongerers and make a lesser quality product.It isn't about what's good for the consumer, it's about what kind of radicals they've given into. And the anti-GMO movement has nothing to do with making people healthier.
Thanks Michael, I completely agree with you. As a near graduating student in nutrition, I would agree that these changes are really insignificant for people's health. FarmersDaughter, I agree with your point. But the way you are presenting this is with a misleading conclusion. Now it seems like nonGMO is unhealthier than GMO, period. So I do not like the way your point is made, because it is not the point that I get out from it, I'm sorry.
I never said that non-GMO is "unhealthier" than GMOs. Never. As I have stated over and over again, my point is that these companies are not making the changes because they're good for consumers or creating a superior quality product. Rather, they're doing it to capitalize on fear-based marketing.
This article is dishonest. They changed their ingredients AND got rid of GMO's!!! GMO's don't some how make things more healthy.
Do you know how to read? Obviously not.The companies changed their ingredients. They couldn't source the vitamins, so they had to cut them out. They switched to non-GMO sources. As a result, there is less of the vitamins in the cereal. That makes it less healthy.
It is kinda hard to read the label in entirety. But, this wouldn't be the first time Kashi/Kelloggs was in trouble for misleading labelinghttp://www.cbsnews.com/news/kashi-to-drop-all-natural-label-from-some-products-to-settle-lawsuit/Also, what is more interesting is thinking that Big Agri/Food companies are out to simply feed the people. They are all about selling food …. the more the better for their bottom line. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0While your argument may have merit, I think there is likely more to it. Would like a clearer picture and more investigation. I did notice soy on both labels. I thought most soy in the US was GMO.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/margie-kelly/genetically-modified-food_b_2039455.htmlSadly, we, taxpayers, foot the bill for at least some of the GMO propagandahttp://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/14/us-usa-gmo-report-idUSBRE94D0IL20130514And, other countries have banned GMO seeds. What could they know? Think there is more to the discussion.
My point, once again, is simply that Kashi caved and gave into the GMO-free activists because they thought it was a good marketing ploy. It wasn't about consumer health or to make a better product. And, really, that's why people are in business — to make money. Of course they want to sell food, what else would a *business* be attempting to do?!Other countries don't know anything that we don't know. See here: https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2014/04/but-…
I guess we will agree to disagree. You can't call something 'all natural' if even part of it is synthetic or not natural. Thus, modified seeds are not truly natural…they were modified in a lab. Personally, my biggest issue is with the large amount of pesticides and hazmat suits
That's the same fallacy that "organic" tries to employ. At what point are you checking whether something is "natural" or not? For example, Arctic Apples were modified simply by using other apple genes. How is that not natural? On the chemical level, EVERYTHING is made up of elements from the periodic table — so how can something not be "natural" in that sense? I'm not sure where you get the "large amount" of pesticides? We are regulated to the amounts that we use (and it's expensive so we aren't throwing it around willy nilly). I think you would benefit from reading about this series: <a href="https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2012/09/debunking-organic-myth-part-1.htmlhttps://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/2012/09/debu… />Oh, and there are no hazmat suits. They may show that in the organic/anti-GMO propaganda, but my dad doesn't own one, nor has he ever even worn one.
You are nothing but a stupid rural piece of white trash who perpetuates the fallacy of genetically modified foods because you are so blindly content at the supposed godliness that science gives you. Look at all the shit food people have to it because it is "fortified" with vitamins. Do you know what "fortified" means? You should know, because of your interest in biotechnology. I hope you get cancer from all of the GMO shit you eat. Then you will see how stupid you are.
You can't come up with a substantive argument, so you wish cancer on me. Classy.
I feel so sorry for you Michael Pickar that your life is so full of hate. This is exactly what I would think liberals who don't have a brain would react to someone who has a different opinion then yours. Oh and don't worry Karma is a bitch. But then you will always have someone else to blame for everything that goes wrong with your life as all losers do.
Wow, someone needs a hug (and a refund on their tuition)
What's scarier is that the douche bag is actually a teacher.
You said (quote): "the non-GMO cereal is less healthy for you"It shouldn't suprise you that people interpret this as an issue about GMO and how healthy foods are. If you'd said that changes to non-GMO are not about health, but about capitalisation on fear-based marketing, rather than focussing on nutrient content for the whole article, people would have had a different interpretation. Just a tip.
I also said: "Just more proof that the war on biotechnology isn't about health and nutrition and making food safer. It isn't about protecting consumers from "big ag" or "evil Monsanto."Technically, it is true. It's "less healthy." Less vitamins means less healthy, even if negligible. Meanwhile, on every other single post I do on GMO marketing, I've mentioned that this marketing gimmick is meant to capitalize on fear.
I still think this article unfortunately formulated. However, I agree with your point and I do think the rest of your blog is pretty good. After the criticism I gave you, I feel that this should be said as well.