I’d certainly like to bake some holiday cookies without GMOs, and when I initially heard McCormick would be rolling out a non-GMO vanilla, I thought it was pretty cool that like other food companies, McCormick is listening to its customers about what they really want in their food.
The company:
“…announced plans to take a leadership position in Organic and Non-GMO herbs and spices ahead of the peak holiday season.”
Unfortunately, the company says that it will be calling their vanilla non-GMO and only verifying this through their normal supply chain, and not necessarily through any transparent means, such as through the Non-GMO Project.
McCormick also claims that over 70% of all McCormick branded spices will be transitioning to either organic or non-GMO. Lori Robinson, Vice President of Corporate Branding, confirmed via an email to Project NOSH that the Non-GMO Vanilla extract will only be ‘verified’ through the company itself, but that they have considered going through the verification process via the Non-GMO Project.
All that the company claims isn’t necessarily up to standard, though. When a July study found that many dried oregano products made by McCormick contained fillers, they quickly issued a statement touting their “field to bottle” sourcing and that all of its oregano products are tested for purity and then “gently” dried to preserve flavor and color. That still doesn’t account for unnecessary fillers.
Like other Big Food Companies, they are swallowing up smaller businesses to try to stay relevant to people who want more simple, straight-forward food.
In August the company completed its $100 million dollar acquisition of Stubb’s barbecue sauces, a brand that has no high fructose corn syrup and seems to be free of other questionable ingredients not wanted by consumers.
Without verification; however, McCormick may very well be like many other companies who just slap an organic or non-GNO label on their food to try to keep consumers buying them.
Only recently, companies like Kellogg’s Kashi were found to be touting their organic standards, only to be found that they were full of GMOs and other unwanted ingredients. Another popular tortilla chip brand was claiming to be organic, but was found to have over 70% contaminated GM corn in their product line.
As the Environmental Working Group explains:
“Manufacturers use the term “organic” in their product names to mislead consumers about the sources of the ingredients. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the federal agency that regulates cosmetics, acknowledges that it does not “define or regulate the term ‘organic’ as it applies to cosmetics, body care or personal care products.”
But these are just questions and general issues brought to light. Perhaps the non-GMO vanilla extract will be authentic, as the company does work to preserve its image.
non-GMO vanilla
Well that’s pretty easy to do. All vanilla is “non-GMO” as there is no commercial GM vanilla bean plant.
McCormick may very well be like many other companies who just slap an organic or non-GNO label on their food to try to keep consumers buying them.
That’s exactly what many companies are doing, and the articles people like Christina Sarich write scare consumers into thinking they need to search out these products.
How many of you all went into your kitchens and looked at the bottle of vanilla extract ingredients?
I’ll bet they are going to substitute the GMO corn syrup.
There’s another logical fallacy. The refined extract from a GM plant is not itself a GMO in any scientific sense. This is purely an ideological belief with no basis in reality.
drhyman dot com/blog/2011/05/13/5-reasons-high-fructose-corn-syrup-will-kill-you/
Corn syrup made from GMO corn is “essentially” the same as HFCS made from conventional corn, because the genetically modified DNA or protein is “undetectable.”
!00% non scientific statement and intentionally misleading.
link removed
Do you have any idea how sensitive DNA assays are? If there were even a nanogram of DNA present in a milliliter of HFCS, it would be detectable. For all practical purposes, if you can’t detect DNA in a sample, it’s not there.
As for protein, HFCS does not contain any protein. It’s a refined product.
!00% non scientific statement and intentionally misleading.
Yes, that is an accurate description of your comments.
Your the one arguing it, I’m just reporting the experts findings, you might tell that to the bio engineer’s that said it.
No one but you mentioned the health effects of HFCS.
Condescending, with displays of higher than thou, ego.
Continually finding points for the sake of argument and opinion based responses.
Degrading people for their posts.
Saying no one has the ability to learn, ie everybody is stupid.
Red Flag
We are done conversing.
You should look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. You’re suffering from it.
Why because I’m exercising my rights and expressing my opinions on the research I’ve found?
Because I won’t accept your opinion as a fact?
I need to bow to an unknown activist on the internet as the wise and worldly expert?
If you carefully study the Dunning-Kruger effect, at this point it can go both ways…
Above you told DrGreenThumb you were done conversing now you answer him again? You just can’t help lying can you.
As I understand, I’m pretty much free to do as I wish.
If not, then call a cop, I’ll wait here.
Yes it is agree country so you can bash veterans and our government as well as lie to all the readers here all you want. I was just pointing it out.
Organic high fructose corn syrup would be just as unhealthy. You’re attempt at constructing a straw man are getting to be a real bore.
The real issue is using GM in the manufacture of additives, it would be the manufactures choice to use all Non-GMO or organic for their processing. This has marketing value, simple economics. I merely stated to your misleading claim vanilla is not GMO and pointed out that there was corn syrup in vanilla extract also.
According to the article, which implies, they will not be using ingredients that have been processed with GM products.
I merely made mention of HFCS, a substance that can be created with GE Corn.
I’m wrong and your right.
Unless you can clearly explain how hfcs from genetically modified corn is materially different from hfcs from non-GMO corn, you don’t have an argument. Well, not one based in science anyway. Rather you have a philosophical argument.
Easy, the HFCS made from GMO is different in that fact that, it isn’t made from organic or non-gmo corn.
Material difference.
You already know there are very few, if any, published studies on HFCS.
Get over it, I’m not doing it, the spice company is.
If you need their contact information I can provide that for you so you can continue your argument with them.
the HFCS made from GMO is different in that fact that, it isn’t made from organic or non-gmo corn.
You didn’t answer the question. What is physically difference that generates the need for a different label? It seems like you can’t answer this question.
mccormickcorporation dot com/Contact-Us
Yep. Still can’t answer that question. You’re continual deflection speaks to how poorly weak of argument you have
Classification of real processes can be tricky. Complex changes can be broken down into many simpler steps. Some of the steps are chemical and others are
physical, so the overall process can’t clearly be placed in either
category.
Since the physical difference will be controversial, due to the lack of studies or published information and will bring any claims or statements into question, the initial materials should be considered, prior to manufacture. Is it processed using a GMO product or not.
Accordingly to any information I was able to find, the processing breaks down the protein and DNA into undetectable molecules. That would be the remaining question, though it is claimed that it has broken down during the process, are there still elements present and what are the potential for harm. You claim none, I claim that maybe more research could be warranted, due to lack thereof. Anything else is just for the sake of continued argument.
I gave you the contact information, take it up with their experts, I’m sure they will say it’s just about the marketing value, which I will readily agree with.
As you can see the process is rather extensive, all aspects and every step needs to be considered before any opinions could be safely assumed or relevant claims made.
infohouse dot p2ric dot org/ref/19/18689.pdf
Maybe you could break down each step of the process, so all those reading could better understand.
What physical difference? You still have yet to point to any specific example of a physical difference. Saying one hfcs is from genetically modified corn and the other is not is only a difference in labels. That is not an example of a physical difference. Nor do I see any reason to suggest one has any inherently greater risk of potential harm. There’s no logic to support such statements.
Physical difference,
Today the Vanilla extract has Corn syrup, tomorrow it doesn’t.
Still not answering the question. That doesn’t address genetic engineering.
It’s all marketing.
What more do you want?
If you want lab results, I would suggest you get in there and conduct lab tests on gmo, non gmo and organic HFCS, you will be famous and can get paid more than being an activist to pay off your student loans.
Again, “you already know” there is little to no published research on HFCS.
Still haven’t answered the question.
Actually the question has been answered many times over.
Your holding the companies decision over me, I don’t work for McComick and I’m not a paid activist. I already gave you the contact information, so use it already and post their response here.
Let me ask you, since I don’t seem to be able to answer your question.
What is the physical difference?
Let me ask you, since I don’t seem to be able to answer your question. What is the physical difference?
There isn’t any physical difference. That’s been my point the whole time. YOU are the one who thinks HFCS from GM corn should be treated differently, yet you cannot provide an coherent argument based on physical differences to justify this demand.
Mommies little boy
Mommies little boy
•
13 minutes ago
Corn syrup made from GMO corn is “essentially” the same as HFCS made from conventional corn.
I already said it, So what’s your point?
I thought there was some intelligence to your questioning, nope just trying to attack me, I got it.
Ahh haa, found the physical difference.
Lab quality vs industry standard, physical difference.
A controlled lab sample and diagram of a molecule structure has very little to do with the real manufacture of corn syrup, Unless the corporate, corner cutting, profit driven industry provides pure clean lab quality corn syrup through their processing and they are willing to spend the money on their QAQC and continual sterilization efforts to ensure that purity.
I can be almost certain that, getting a sample from an industrial processing plant will have measurable impurities.
No guarantee of purity, ie physical difference.
No, that’s still not a physical difference. Allow me to explain.
I can be almost certain that, getting a sample from an industrial processing plant will have measurable impurities.
1) You’re merely asserting that there is a difference. Assertions are not evidence.
2) Your argument does not distinguish HFCS from non-GM vs GM corn. Based on your argument, HFSC from non-GM would have the same “impurities” when produced on an industrial scale versus a lab scale (assuming for the sake of argument that this is even true, though you haven’t demonstrated it).
Let me give you an example of a physical difference due to GE. Non-browning Arctic Apples. A non-browning GE granny smith apple and a non-GM granny smith apple have physical differences. The GM apples has lower levels of an enzyme called polyphenol oxidase, which is involved in browning. The difference in the levels of this enzyme is a physical difference.
You still haven’t answered the question about HFCS despite trying for over a week now. Perhaps it’s time to re-evaluate your opinions?
Tthe purity and quality of a for profit institution cannot be guaranteed.
Again, Corn syrup made from GMO corn is “essentially” the same as HFCS made from conventional corn.
The wording might imply that there are various possibilities of contamination. That has nothing to do with either GMO or non varieties, but rather with those trusted with the manufacture and processing of. That would imply that a physical difference could be measurable in certain incidents and yes throughout GMO or non-GMO/organic processing. I know I’m splitting hairs, but all must be considered when investigating.
On a molecular comparison, or in it’s purest form under perfectly controlled conditions, there is no physical difference.
Remember I’m taking the alien spacecraft and back engineering.
Though I have admittedly make a few errors, this is my final answer.
Tthe purity and quality of a for profit institution cannot be guaranteed.
The fact that an organization is for profit doesn’t automatically mean the purity and quality of their product is inferior. Sure, it pays to be skeptical. But honest skepticism means open to being wrong about your opinion.
That has nothing to do with either GMO or non varieties, but rather with those trusted with the manufacture and processing of
So it’s not about GMOs but rather about large scale food manufacturing, right?
On a molecular comparison, or in it’s purest form under perfectly controlled conditions, there is no physical difference.
Hey! We agree! 🙂
The purity and quality of a for profit institution cannot be guaranteed.
The
fact that an organization is for profit doesn’t automatically mean the
purity and quality of their product is inferior.
I just said it cannot be guaranteed, unless you have some documented proof that they all practice and demand above industry standards in product safety and purity?
That’s not an argument against anything. The exact same can br said about products from non-profit organizations. I really don’t see what your point is.
Yes it is, there are circumstances involved that can determine/ effect purity.
Though it is outside of your agenda driven argument, but logically still relevant.
Example your statement, The exact same can be said about products from non-profit organizations, I didn’t specify GMO, non-GMO or organic. You did, why?
There is a difference between, looks good on paper and reality.
The paid Monsanto maggots here are so nasty that they resemble Jeffrey Dahmer trying to sell ‘special’ baby food.
One instinctively avoids them and anything they promote.
I see, other people are the “nasty” ones even though you’re the one calling people maggots. Hypocritical much?
I am glad for McCormick. I was about to take them off of my purchase list.