A recent news release from Reuters chronicles the story of independent labs that are being challenged to keep up with requests of product testing for traces of the 2A carcinogen glyphosate. The wave of requests range from small food companies, groups of doctors, individuals, and others.
“The requests keep coming in,” said Ben Winkler, laboratory manager at Microbe Inotech Laboratories in St. Louis. Winkler continues by saying “Some people want to stay out in front of this. Nobody knows what it means yet, but a lot of people are testing.”
The commercial lab has received three to four requests a week to test foods and other substances for glyphosate residues. In prior years, it received only three to four requests annually, according to its records.
Looking beyond the headline, what we are witnessing is a further continuation of the rapid paradigm shift away from biotech, GMO food, and its poisons. GMO food and its associated chemicals have officially been shown to not only be toxic for humans, but also for any company’s bottom line that decides to associate themselves with them.
In the last year, McDonald’s, Starbucks, Kellogg’s, and others have all sustained major damage to their brand and financial health for dragging their feet to public demands for product changes away from GMOs. What Microbe Inotech Laboratories and others across the world are representing is the next, and potentially final, wave to swamp biotech’s “settled science.”
The decentralization of product testing away from the umbrella influence of biotech payoffs, threats, and influence is the end game. As recently reported, scientists at the USDA have asked for greater protection from the constant threats to their career, safety, and fraud from reporting the disastrous results found during GMO testing.
In the past, there was a lock down at the revolving door FDA, EPA, and USDA on information that casts a poor shadow on biotech and its products. However, this is all changing now. One has to imagine for biotech public relations divisions; this new era of independent lab reporting is a nightmarish game of industry-ending whack-a-mole.
Given the current trajectory, it appears the future market leaders will be those products that claim “Glyphosate Free” and “GMO Free.” For small health and food companies looking to carve out a name for themselves, these label additions are a home run.
The market has responded with speed, labeling laws be damned. There is no doubt that, in addition to this race to verify which company has the safest products, legal concerns lay heavy on CEO’s and financial departments. If you are now found selling a product that knowingly contains a 2A carcinogen, in the same category as HPV and HIV, this can now be punishable by law.
Without major press or headlines, all food companies now have a major weakness exposed that should warrant immediate attention. In the age of rapid information, the question really is “What kind of attention does your company want?”