Loading...

Tell Organic Baby Food Companies to Remove the GMOs

cute baby picture

GMOs in organic baby food? Apparently.

“The DHA and ARA produced by DSM Nutritional Products, and used in many organic infant formulas and baby cereals, is made using what the organic law describes as excluded methods,” a draft email to a couple of baby food companies and DSM Nutritional Products notes.

“Specifically, DHA and ARA are microencapsulated and produced using mutagenesis.”

Whether you have a baby or not, if you’re not into this, you can send the full email via the Organic Consumers Association (OCA).

However, OCA notes that there are a few other companies that need to be contacted — that can be done via the contact forms on their sites. The companies are:

It’s a shame that we have to fight with our food regulatory agencies and mainstream food companies to not be used as GMOΒ guinea pigs, but that such action is needed with these 6 organic foods companies shows how deep the proliferation of GMOs is now.

Keep up the work to keep potentially unsafe GMOs out of our babies’ food by taking the actions above. If you want more info on microencapsulation and mutagenesis before clicking on, here’s more from OCA:

Microencapsulation manipulates the DHA and ARA to transform it from an oil to a powder. This method is specifically listed as an excluded method in the organic regulations, one of a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production.

Mutagenesis involves exposing cells to radiation or mutagenic chemicals to create a variety of mutant cells from which desired characteristics can be selected. DHA and ARA are produced from mutant strains of algae and fungi with unnaturally high DHA and ARA levels. Mutagenesis is not specifically mentioned in the definition of excluded methods, but it certainly fits.

Baby photoΒ via dulcelife

8 comments
  1. Richard Cornett

    I don’t get it. Hasn’t GMO food been sold commercially for more than a decade, without sickness or ill health? Haven’t they been approved by the USDA and state health agencies? Is it true that million of people have ingested GMO products found in corn and soybeans for years without an epidemic of bad health effects? Is it because infants are more prone to whatever virus, bacteria or deadly organisms produced by GMO foods? But wait, have there been problems in this area? I haven’t seen any reports. Are babies getting sick from eating GMO foods? Where? When? Shouldn’t someone inform the masses that we are being poisoned by genetically engineered plants? Are we all in danger of growing hair on the bottom of our feet, or even a third nostril? Somebody please clear this up!!!

    1. Becky Striepe

      As much as I like to trust biotechnology lobbyists with my health, I’d prefer to eat food that’s not genetically modified, and I’ll definitely make that choice for my kid when my husband and I start a family. There has been an increase in sickness and ill health. Look at the spike in food allergies over the past decades and compare the most common foods that folks have allergies to with the ones that are most commonly genetically modified.

      1. GH

        I suppose if I picked out a few that have lowered over the past few years you’d assume those are advantages to GE crops? Or would you say the link between those good things and GE crops is merely correlation, which does not imply causation, and without anything solid (causative agents perhaps?) any attempt to link the declines in those diseases with GE crops is meaningless? Because I would. And no one is saying to trust lobbyists. Now, scientific consensus on the other hand, yes. That’s the same straw man the people who say about climate change that you shouldn’t trust Al Gore while oh so conveniently ignoring scientific consensus on that topic. Also, allergies are caused by very specific proteins, out of the thousands we consume only a minority have allergenic affects), so it would be quite surprising if they just showed up in GE crops. No surprise that, for all the speculation on the subject, there is no convincing evidence supporting the idea that GE crops are causing allergies. I’ve heard of a lot more people having problems with peanuts and wheat (neither of which are GE, though I do love the occasional story that pops up from time to time about people saying they have reactions to ‘GE’ wheat) than corn and soybean (which are in the same family as peanuts, a family known for allergies, so one of the big ones is already a known allergen to some people). Haven’t heard much about allergies form canola and cotton either, though given that they are consumed in oil form you wouldn’t really expect that anyway.

        And complaints about mutagenesis, that’s a new one (well, sort of, I’ve heard it once before, when some thugs in France couldn’t find any more science to attack they destroyed a field of sunflowers). I always figured it wouldn’t stop at GE. What’s next I wonder? What if those mutations were potentially the result of solar radiation affecting a cell? What if they were just put in the food supply and called the same thing as the non-mutated originals? We could call them sports. Enjoy your ‘Red Delicious’.

  2. Nadia

    The point is MONSANTO (who patents these GM vegetables and fruits) are trying to take over the food supply!! The OTHER point is that we are MODIFYING SEEDS!!! God-given or nature-given seeds!!!!! Why is there ANY need to modify what is ALREADY PERFECT??? What are the nutritional differences between the seeds that are natural to this earth and the seeds that are MODIFIED??? Just because we haven’t found any links to autoimmune disorders (which are on the rise), infant mortality (which is on the rise) or cancer (which is on the RISE), does NOT mean there isn’t one! Which brings me back to my original point! The reason for genetic modification: So Monsanto can patent seeds and not only in the process maintain their mulit-billionaire status but also CONTROL our food supply. Why isn’t everyone concerned about the implications of these things? Why does everyone put blinders on when it comes to science assuming that every discovery is worth BLINDLY embracing simply for the sake of advancement. I venture to ask what we are ADVANCING towards exactly when clearly the US is DECLINING in health? CLEARLY history will tell us that science has NOT always benefited us!? Case in point: all the pharmaceutical drugs that treat symptoms, NOT causes! And everyone is satisfied with this??? NOT ME!

    1. GH

      And just because I haven’t found an invisible heatless dragon in my garage (look it up) doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and that GE didn’t cause it. Correlation does not imply causation, and IIRC there are a number of diseases on the decline; I notice you’re not trying to attribute that on genetic engineering. Strange double standard. By the way, have you ever even seen the ‘perfect’ natural forms of the crops we eat? Seedy bananas, small sour apples, seedy and sour grapes, gritty pears…those are natural, not what we buy in the stores. Wild beans, tomatoes, and potatoes could make you sick (hows that for a nutritional difference?). Broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, corn, and wheat were all created by humans. We have buildings older than broccoli. People like to point out that this was not genetic engineering, and that’s true. The changes were much greater than made with genetic engineering. There is not a shred of credible evidence linking GE crops to any health problem. You can posture about it all you want, but you can replace GMOs with iPads and your argument holds about as much water.

      As for the patent issue, you can patent non-GE plants just as well. The patent laws are older than the science. And that’s what it is by the way. You can talk about patents and laws all you like. Doesn’t mean that the GE crops themselves are bad.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *