Bypass Advertising Chickens**t When Buying Eggs

The Incredible, Marketable Egg

As I frequently remind you (and myself), I'm old. Old enough to remember going to the grocery store to buy eggs that just said “EGGS” on the plain, old-fashioned cardboard carton. No “cage free” or “hormone free” or “free range” or any of the other clever qualifiers stamped all over the fancy containers eggs come in nowadays.

Back in those days of blissful ignorance we didn't think much about how eggs got into the cartons. Most of us knew enough about farm life to draw mental pictures of jovial farmers in overalls going out to the henhouse and raiding the nests of contented cluckers. We didn't know – or want to know – about factory farms wherein thousands of hens existed in battery cages; wire mesh contraptions, stacked and wired together usually containing more than one chicken squashed side by side with another in an arrangement that keeps them from being able to spread their wings or stretch their legs or do much of anything other than sit there and lay eggs. Each bird “lives” – if you can call it that – in about seventy square inches of space. I'm looking at my 9”x8” mousepad. That's seventy-two square inches. My wireless mouse has more room to roam than a factory farm hen. Kinda makes you look at your omelet in a different light, doesn't it?

Fortunately, awareness of these inhumane conditions is slowly forcing changes to be made in the way eggs are produced. I don't know if we'll ever get to that bucolic scene I described in the previous paragraph, but several big egg sellers and big egg users have gotten behind efforts to moderate or eliminate the cruelty. A number of states have limited or banned the use of battery cages and legislation is in the works in other jurisdictions to make things better for the birds that provide us with such an essential element of our diets.

And, of course, even as substantive efforts at improvement are being undertaken at the legal level, here come the hucksters, hawkers, peddlers, and sloganeers from the ad agencies trotting out to help thoroughly obfuscate the issue. Ever ones to leap to the forefront of a cause to see if a dollar might be made there, they have cluttered supermarket eggs cartons with all kinds of meaningless words and phrases designed to confuse consumers into feeling better about themselves and their choices. With that thought in mind, allow me to blaze a path through the chickenshit in an attempt to offer some clarity.

Let's start with “farm fresh.” If you've ever seen – or smelled – a commercial chicken farm, “fresh” is the last thing that comes to mind. It's just a term they use to sell eggs. If you want real “farm fresh” eggs, you have to go a real farm. As far as commercial egg freshness goes, check all those arcane codes on the end of the carton. There's a “pack date,” an “expiration date,” and a plant code. The plant code simply tells you in what facility the eggs were actually packaged. It's a four-digit code that's usually preceded by a “P” and if you're really curious, the USDA has a plant location tool you can use.

The “expiration date” is more a guideline for the store than for the consumer. Also expressed as a “sell by,” “use by,” or “best by” date, it just tells the grocer when to pull the eggs from the shelf. You can still safely eat the eggs for at least a couple of weeks after they “expire.” Same thing with a “sell by/use by/best by” date; it's an indicator of maximum freshness, not safety. Both expiration and sell by dates are based on the pack date; expiration dates have to be thirty days or less from the pack date and sell by dates have to be within forty-five days. The pack date is the actual date on which the eggs were put in the carton. It's a three-digit number that may be a bit confusing because it's based on Julian dating. Julian dates run from 1 through 365 (366 in a leap year), so eggs packed on April 1 of a regular year, for instance, will be Julian coded as 091.

“Natural” and “All Natural” are among the ad game's most popular buzzwords. And also among the most meaningless. They tend to slap the word “natural” on just about anything. According to the dictionary, “natural” means “existing in or formed by nature.” If that's not a broad category I don't know what is. When it comes to eggs, the USDA says egg products are “natural” if they contain no artificial ingredients, added color, and are only minimally processed. I've never encountered an artificially enhanced, color-added, processed egg, so I'm assuming just about all eggs are “natural.” And if you're scrambling unnatural eggs, I'm not sure I want to know about it.

“Organic” is the next big word of the day. It's a term that actually does have meaning when it's enforced and not just used as a selling tool. Organic eggs can be a bit healthier for you because the chickens that lay them are healthier. Organic eggs come from free-range chickens that have not been doped up with hormones, antibiotics or other drugs and which have been fed with entirely organic feed. That means the feed given to the chickens can't come from crops that are genetically modified, treated with pesticides or herbicides, or fertilized with chemical or synthetic products. And no poultry-slaughter byproducts. Which leads to another often misunderstood label: “vegetarian-fed.”

People like to think of happy chickens eating grass and grain and green, leafy vegetables. That's a nice picture but far from the truth. Chickens are omnivores: they'll eat anything including other chickens or parts thereof left over from the slaughtering process. They also eat bugs and crickets and any fly larvae – aka maggots – they happen to find hanging around in cow manure. Sorry. Probably better not to dwell on a chicken's natural diet for too long, but do keep in mind that a “vegetarian-fed” chicken's favorite between meal snack is frequently.....chicken.

I mentioned hormones. That's another specious selling point: “No Added Hormones.” By law, laying hens are not allowed to be given hormones anyway, so this phrase is a selling gimmick. Even the cheap eggs in the cheap cardboard cartons that just say “EGGS” contain no added hormones.

Same thing applies to “Antibiotic-Free.” According to the US Poultry and Egg Association, there are only three antibiotics approved by the FDA for use in laying flocks and “only a small percentage of laying flocks producing conventional eggs ever receive antibiotics due to use of effective vaccines and other management practices which minimize the need for antibiotics to treat illness.” And FDA regulations for antibiotic use ensure that antibiotic residue does not migrate to the eggs. So, it's just another advertising gimmick.

“Non GMO” is a controversial term. In and of themselves, eggs are, of course, not genetically modified. Nobody's out there trying to engineer a better chicken or a better egg through genetic manipulation. The “non-GMO” label is meant to apply to the feed the hens consume, but unfortunately most gullible consumers just see “Non-GMO” and think, “Oh, how wonderful! Non-GMO eggs!” And that's what the ad people want them to think. It sells more eggs.

“Omega-3” sounds healthy, doesn't it? And most nutritionists will agree it is. Chickens on a natural diet get an omega-3 boost from sources such as the aforementioned grasses and weeds. Such hens, therefore, lay eggs that are higher in omega-3 fatty acids than chickens that are only grain-fed. Grain-fed birds get their omega-3 charge from fortified feed. “Omega-3” eggs can be fortified with different types of omega-3 fatty acids: DHA (docosahexaenoic acid), commonly found in fish oil, and ALA (alpha linolenic acid), a component in flaxseed, walnuts, and chia seeds. EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid), also found in fish oil, is another player in the omega-3 game. The problem is there's no official recommendation for human intake of any of these substances, and even if you allow for the 1,000 mg daily intake of a combination of DHA and EPA that some experts promote, the amount of omega-3 acids added to eggs through a diet of flaxseed and fish oil are minimal. One omega-3 egg typically contains 340 milligrams of ALA and seventy-five to one hundred milligrams of DHA. So you'd have to chow down at least two-and-a-half eggs every day to get anywhere close to a beneficial level. But it sounds really healthy and it sells eggs.

“Humanely Raised” and “Animal Welfare Approved” are terms that help sell eggs to people who truly are concerned about animal welfare. You'll see little seals that say either “Certified Humane” or “Animal Welfare Approved” on the cartons. The former means that the egg producer subscribes to a set of rules and regulations that guarantee chickens have decent, healthy living conditions that include proper ventilation and appropriate nesting material in their nest boxes. They are also given the opportunity to “bathe,” something chickens do to rid themselves of lice and other parasites by flopping around in a box of dirt. The other label certifies that the birds have all these things plus being raised almost entirely outdoors and that they escape wholesale slaughter and are painlessly euthanized when their usefulness as layers expires.

Let's wrap up this walk through the chicken droppings by examining the real stars of the egg marketing firmament, “cage-free,” “free-range,” and “pastured” or “pasture raised.”

According to the US Poultry and Egg Association, “eggs labeled as cage free must be produced by hens housed in a building, room, or enclosed area that allows for unlimited access to food and water, and provides the freedom to roam within the area during the laying cycle.” However, “cage-free” only means that chickens aren’t kept in actual cages. They might still live jammed in on top of one another, up to their knees in their own and their neighbor's waste, and never see daylight within that “building, room, or enclosed area.” And remember what I said about chickens being omnivorous? It has been shown in some cases that without the barriers of cages, “cage-free” chickens living in close proximity to other chickens have a higher mortality rate due not only to the easier spread of disease but also because they tend to peck one another to death.

“Free-range” is a little better option because, the association says, “free-range” eggs must be produced by hens housed in a building, room, or area that allows for unlimited access to food, water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle. The outdoor area may be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material. The operative word here is “access.” Just because a chicken has “access” to the outdoors doesn't necessarily mean it goes outdoors. Often chickens are still jammed into cavernous buildings with a small door on one end that opens to a few feet of outside dirt space. Even if the chickens on the far end of the building know the door is there, there's no way they'll ever get to it. And “outdoors” doesn't automatically mean some picturesque pasture where the chickens can romp and play in the sunshine. “The outdoor area may be fenced and/or covered with netting-like material;” in other words, a screened-in porch of some sort may qualify as “outdoors.”

“Pasture-Raised” or “Pastured” eggs are kind of the humane gold standard. They are exactly what they imply; eggs that are gathered from chickens who run around outdoors eating the things that chickens who run around outdoors eat. The “girls” at Vital Farms, for example, live on rotated pastures with an allowance of approximately 108 square feet per bird. Contrast that the with the seventy or so square inches allotted to commercially raised chickens in battery cages. Of course, regular old commercial eggs can sell for less than a dollar a dozen while pastured eggs go for upwards of six or seven dollars a dozen, but, as with most things in life, you get what you pay for.

Oh, and one more thing you'll find printed on egg cartons: grades. Grades are the USDA's “beauty contest” for eggs. The grades “A,” “AA,” and “B” have nothing to do with the nutritional content of the egg. While they do help weed out defective eggs with unpleasant things like blood spots, meat spots, bloody whites, mixed rot, blood rings, stuck yolks, embryo chicks, and other nastiness that you wouldn't want to serve sunny-side up, grades are primarily cosmetic standards. The highest grade is Grade AA. These eggs have thick, firm whites and high, round yolks with clean, unbroken shells. Grade A eggs, the ones usually sold in stores, have most of the same characteristics of Grade AA, except their whites are "reasonably" firm. Grade B eggs have whites that may be thinner and yolks that may be wider and flatter than higher graded eggs and while their shells must still be unbroken, slight stains are permissible. And, of course, that USDA grade shield is yet another marketing tool used to sell more eggs.

No eggs were harmed in the writing of this article – at least not yet. I feel a frittata coming on and you know what they say about not having an omelet without breaking a few organic, pasture-raised, Grade AA eggs.

GMO Labels: Corn Refiners Think You're An Idiot

Why Is Transparency So Scary?

As the debate over GMO labeling rages on, Congress has finally done something right and blocked an attempt by Big Food to undermine state efforts requiring food labels listing GMO ingredients. The Honorable Republican Senator from the Great State of Kansas managed to squeeze himself out of the pockets of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the Corn Refiners Association, and other special interest groups long enough to introduce a bill that would have made GMO labeling strictly voluntary on a federal level, thereby gutting and negating mandatory efforts by Vermont and other states to list GMO ingredients at the state level. Nice dodge, huh? The old “cut 'em off at the knees” gambit. Except it didn't exactly work. By the narrowest of margins – 48 to 49 – the Senate defeated the measure, voting largely along party lines with Sen. Roberts' fellow Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Three senators, Cruz, Rubio, and Sanders did not vote on the proposal, apparently having other things on their agendas.

So it appears the Biotech Labeling Solutions Act – dubbed the DARK (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act by GMO opponents – is dead. This means that individual states can continue to move forward with a variety of labeling laws. Vermont's mandatory labeling law is set to go into effect July 1, and other states are considering similar laws. Of course, some other bought and paid for bonehead in Washington could and probably will come up with another obfuscatory attempt at subverting our right to know what we're eating, but for now the effort is as dead as it deserves to be. The millions of dollars Big Food overtly and covertly spread like fertilizer all over DC are now moot, meaning they'll have to jack up the cost of our comestibles to cover their losses.

Curiously, that very thing is one of the selling points outfits like the Corn Refiners and the Grocery Manufacturers uses to frighten and mislead the gullible and uninformed into opposing labeling laws. The Corn Refiners Association, for example, released a “study” in which they claimed your grocery bill will increase by about $1,050 per year as a result of GMO labeling. “The impact of Vermont’s mandatory law requiring on package labels for foods produced with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) would increase food costs for consumers across the country due to the cost of the new labeling systems and because consumers will likely view the GMO labels as warnings, leading food companies to switch from GMO ingredients to more expensive non-GMO ingredients. Such costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.”

The “study” throws out numbers like “$81.9 billion annually” and “2.5 percent of the median income of the poorest fifth of the population” and “nearly 2 percent (1.76 percent) in average food prices nationwide in the first year. These higher grocery costs will likely continue in the years ahead with a total cost of approximately $13,250 per household over 20 years.”

By the way, the “study” was commissioned by the Corn Refiners Association. That's in the really fine print at the bottom.

Obviously, the Corn Refiners think you're an idiot. And so do the Grocery Manufacturers, whose spokes-flak whined, "Despite today’s vote, there continues to be a strong bipartisan consensus to protect American consumers from the increased food costs and confusion of a 50-state patchwork of labeling laws."

Oh, we poor, benighted fools! How fortunate we are to have big, strong, unbiased, non-partisan organizations like the Grocery Manufacturers and the Corn Refiners out there in the trenches protecting us from ourselves. We, the weak-minded, are so easily “confused.” We should be on our knees every day thanking God that we have Corn Refiners and Grocery Manufacturers to guide our steps and show us the way, for, yea, verily, we are but ignorant clods, too oblivious and obtuse to understand these things for ourselves.

I don't know about you, but the assault on my intelligence offends me. And it probably offends the 89 to 90 percent of people recently surveyed who say they want to know what's in the food they're consuming. They're not confused, they're outraged. And justifiably so. Why is transparency so scary?

For the benefit of any Corn Refiners, Grocery Manufacturers, or Republican senators reading this, allow me to clarify the issue, using small, easy to understand words. I don't care that an ingredient is genetically modified. Food scientists say that kind of thing is perfectly alright. And you know how reliable food scientists are. (Trans-fats are good; trans-fats are bad. Eggs are bad; eggs are good. Cholesterol will kill you; ooops.....never mind.) The point the political puppets and their string-pulling masters don't seem to get is that I/we don't care that the GMOs are in there, we just want to know that they are so we can make informed buying decisions.

Genetically modified or not, for instance, I don't like high-fructose corn syrup. I want to know if the product I'm purchasing contains HFCS. If it's not printed on the label, then I don't know. Hence, I am uninformed and that, apparently, is the way Big Food would like to keep me. Even to the extent that the Corn Refiners Association, the source of HFCS, once floated a campaign past the FDA to get HFCS re-designated as “corn sugar” on food labels. Thankfully, the normally lapdog-ish FDA shot that one down. But was the effort made in order to alleviate our “confusion?” Hell no! It was a blatantly transparent attempt on the part of the manufacturer to deliberately confuse and mislead the consumer. And yet, they don't want to “confuse” us with GMO labeling? Chew on that for awhile and if it doesn't make you madder than hell, you must be kin to Gandhi.

How stupid, Corn Refiners, do you think I am? Do you really believe that I'm going to misconstrue the words “genetically modified” before the word “corn” in fine print on a food label as a “warning?” I'm not that damn dumb, thankyouverymuch. Now, if somebody were demanding that you slap “Contains GMO” in big red letters on the front of the package right under the product name, I could understand your concern. But the words “genetically modified corn” in an ingredient list don't scare me any more than the words “high-fructose corn syrup” do. Why does putting them there scare you?

Fortunately, there are rams among the sheep. Groups like “Just Label It”, “GMO-Free USA”, and Top Chef Tom Colicchio's “Food Policy Action” are actively shedding light on something that has been too long in the dark. After gathering the signatures of more than four thousand chefs on a petition, Colicchio said, "Senator Roberts' ridiculous new version of the DARK Act would deny us the right to know what's in our food and how it's grown — the same right held by consumers in 64 other nations. Consumers should be trusted to decide their own food choices, but Senator Roberts apparently thinks Washington knows best. This is exactly the sort of crony capitalism that voters across the country are rejecting."

“Just Label It” chairman Gary Hirshberg put a fine point on it when he said, "Americans have the right to know what's in their food and how it's grown." Period. End of sentence. End of debate.

Here's some advice for pandering back-pocket politicians and their avaricious bankrollers: Don't give me self-serving fuddle muddle about how you're out there nobly fighting the good fight to represent and protect me and keep me from being “confused.” It's maddeningly, infuriatingly insulting. I know better and I'll prove it at the grocery counter and at the ballot box.

Let me reiterate; I'm not questioning the safety of GMOs. That's a debate for another time. I just want to know what I'm buying. I'll decide, based on my own knowledge and research, whether or not to buy your product once I see what's in it. Don't try to sell me a pig in a poke. Make the poke sack transparent and let me see the pig. That's all I'm asking. If I still want the pig, I'll buy it, and if I'd rather have chicken, I won't. Why is that so hard for Corn Refiners, Grocery Manufacturers and Republican senators to comprehend?

I don't give a rat's ass about Presidential politics here, but Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has it right when he says, "All over this country, people are becoming more conscious about the food they eat and the food they serve their kids. When parents go to the store and purchase food for their children, they have a right to know what they are feeding them. GMO labeling exists in 64 other countries. There is no reason it can’t exist here."

Campbell's has broken ranks with its other Big Food cronies. The soup giant that also owns the Pepperidge Farm, V8, and Prego labels will place a small statement under their ingredient lists that reads: “Partially produced with genetic engineering. For more information about G.M.O. ingredients, visit WhatsinMyFood.com.” That's it. No flashing signs, no dire warnings. No “confusion.” Information, plain and simple. And that's all 89 to 90 percent of us want.

(UPDATE: from the Associated Press: "General Mills said on Friday (3/18) that it would start labeling all products that contain genetically modified ingredients to comply with a law set to go into effect in Vermont. General Mills, the maker of Cheerios, Progresso soups and Yoplait yogurt, said it was simply impractical to label products for sale in just one state, so the disclosures required by Vermont starting in July will be on all its products, beginning over the next several weeks." Guess that means the cost of my Cheerios will now skyrocket. Oh, I'm so confused.)

GMO Food Labeling – It's Not About Safety, It's About Our Right to Know

Let's hear it for the rabble rousers in Vermont! They have succeeded in sticking it to Big Food.

Vermont's governor, Peter Shumlin, recently signed legislation making his state the first to require identification of genetically modified organisms – GMO – on food labels. The lackeys at the FDA have bowed and scraped at the feet of Monsanto and other “Big Food” producers, as well as the food industry shills at the Grocery Manufacturers Association, and have avoided requiring such labeling at the federal level. So, groups of concerned citizens have been pushing the states to step forward and, although industry pressure has cowed a couple of them – looking at you, California and Washington – the movement is gaining ground. Vermont's neighbors in Maine and Connecticut have passed labeling legislation, but are covering their bets by declaring that the laws won't take effect until other states jump on the bandwagon. I don't know if Vermont's action will motivate them or not. But there are still at least 85 bills pending in 29 states regarding GMO labeling.

Of course, you can expect that Big Food will not take this affront to their sovereignty lightly. As sure as night follows day, there will be challenges and lawsuits that will keep Vermont's lawyers busy for months if not years. But it's a step in the right direction.

What's all the fuss, you might ask? After all, GMO foods have been around for a long time and people have not started dropping like flies as a result. As a matter of fact, most scientific evidence points to the mutations being benign. Other than a few red flag wavers – like the European Union, Japan, Australia, and a host of other countries – many people don't seem to have a problem with GMO from a safety standpoint. The promoters say that such technology is essential to feeding a growing world population. They say that their products will someday be more nutritious and the techniques involved in growing them will be better for the environment. Woo-hoo! I hope they're right. That's not really the issue here. The issue is one of clearly labeling the contents of our food packages.

Why is the food industry so dead set against us knowing what they're doing? If I hear one more food industry flak insult my intelligence by spouting off the company line, “Labels will only mislead and confuse consumers,” I think I'll have a conniption. How stupid do they think we all are? (Don't answer that.)

I have a right to know what I'm putting in my mouth, dammit. Don't tell me I'll be confused or mislead or frightened by seeing “Contains Genetically Modified Ingredients” printed on a label. That's what we have labels for; to tell us what's in the package before we decide to buy it. I'm not terrified by the prospect of mutated corn in my corn oil. But I'd still like to know it's in there. Why is that “confusing,” “misleading,” or “frightening?” I know of another word that could solve all the issues: “education.” If the food industry is so all-fired certain that we're nothing but a bunch of ignorant dolts, then I call upon them to educate us rather than to attempt to protect us from ourselves. When it comes to what we're putting in our bodies, ignorance is not bliss. Even if the substance in question is holy water, I want to know it's in there. I have a right to know it's in there. Why shouldn't I know it's in there? Unless there really is something to hide. Is the food industry really concerned that we poor fools will be confused, or do they have a darker agenda they're trying to hide? (Bwah-ha-ha! I love a good conspiracy theory!)

Seriously, c'mon, FDA, Monsanto, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and cowardly and/or corrupt politicians everywhere. Knowing what's in our food supply may not be one of the inalienable rights We the People are guaranteed by the Constitution, but maybe it should be. I'm sure James Madison and his cronies weren't up on genetic engineering, but they were pretty much on the side of an informed populace. And that's all we're asking; to be informed. To be able to make informed decisions. If GMO are safe, then the manufacturers and promoters of the stuff have nothing to hide and nothing to lose by telling us about it. If they're not safe and future generations start sprouting extra fingers and toes, well, at least we were informed and given the option to buy or not to buy.

The labeling issue is in our hands. We're the ones with the need to know and we're the only ones who can demand that we do know. The sight of FDA officials doing cartwheels and handstands at the bidding of their industry handlers is pathetic. They're like monkeys performing for peanuts. Probably genetically modified ones. Big Food has them firmly under control and the only way we'll get anything done that benefits us rather than “the industry” is if we all do what a bunch of rabble rousers in Vermont did. Don't just speak up, shout out! Make your state legislators hear your voice. Let them know that you want to be informed about what you're eating. It's that simple. It's not about safety or science, although that may be part of the bigger picture. And it's not about fear or confusion. With all the additives and preservatives the food industry shovels into our grocery carts, there's already enough questionable crap in there as it is. We just demand the right to know exactly what that questionable crap is and whether or not we really want to buy it.

Hooray for Non-GMO Cheerios.......Sort Of

“Original Cheerios to Go GMO Free!” screamed the recent headline on my newsfeed. Well, hooray

for Non-GMO Cheerios.......sort of.

Okay, let's start with the basic question; what's a GMO? GMO stands for genetically modified organism and refers to....well.....an organism that has been genetically modified. But in this case we're not talking about some weird science fiction creature dreamed up in a mad scientist's laboratory. No. We're talking about your food supply. Specifically, your processed food supply because nearly all corn and soy crops in the United States are genetically modified.

What kind of modifications are we talking about? Oh, nothing that would be bad for you, heaven forbid. The toothless tigers at the FDA and the USDA would never think of letting anything bad for you slip into the food system. Unless there was enough money and influence involved. Anyway, these modifications are designed to produce bigger, fuller products and more of them. They are designed to be disease and pest resistant. Isn't that all wonderful and beneficial-sounding? We won't talk about the possible effects such engineering may have on the overall quality and nutritional value of the food involved and we won't speak of creating toxic or allergenic compounds within the molecular structure of the food. We wouldn't want to alarm the sheeple, would we?

Never mind that every other country on the planet requires labeling of GMO products or bans them outright. Our forward-thinking, progressive food system is, by and large, run by shills for the industrial food producers they are supposed to be regulating. Think foxes guarding the hen houses. So GMO labeling is not required in the good ol' US of A and since GMO are not even considered food additives, there are no requirements in place to prevent them from being added to just about anything and everything food manufacturers desire. And we the sheeple need not be told. What we don't know won't hurt us. Much.

But, as I said, hooray for Cheerios and its producer General Mills. They are taking a bold step forward and, in response to consumer demand, they are eliminating GMO ingredients from original Cheerios. Read the press releases. The forces of good have overpowered the evil dark side. The consumer has spoken. We are changing our wicked, wicked ways. Now, don't you feel good about us?

Meh. There's one little detail they kind of gloss over. Cheerios are made of oats. And there's no such thing – yet – as genetically modified oats. So they want you to get all excited over the fact that they are not genetically modifying something they weren't genetically modifying to begin with. Rather like the “gluten free” pushers who slap “gluten free” labels on scores of rice and corn and potato products – products that are inherently gluten free – in order to look politically correct and to sell more stuff.

Want to know what's in Cheerios? Hang on: Whole Grain Oats, Corn Starch, Sugar, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate, Wheat Starch, Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) added to preserve freshness. Tripotassium Phosphate is an emulsifier, in case you were dying to know, and “mixed tocopherols” are preservatives used because of their resistance to high temperatures in food processing, their low volatility and good solubility in fats and oils.

But the point is, the only thing in Cheerios that contains any sort of genetically modified material are the relatively small amounts of corn starch and sugar. So they're promising to use non-GMO corn and sugar in original Cheerios. But not in any other variety. See, there are boatloads of GMO ingredients in other Cheerios products. Honey Nut Cheerios, for instance, not only has corn starch and sugar, but brown sugar as well and canola oil, which can also be genetically modified. Multi-Grain Cheerios contain lots of corn – corn, corn starch, and corn bran. And the other varieties are pretty much the same story. By their own admission it would cost General Mills too much money to stop using GMO in all their product lines, so they're only going to respond to consumer demands where it won't hurt them much by trumpeting their corporate responsibility and slapping their “No GMO” label on the product that's least affected in the first place.

But, hey, if nothing else at least it raises awareness of GMO in the industrial food supply and maybe if enough consumers start asking, “What's that doing in there?” and start voting with their dollars at the grocery store, things will change. The last thing food manufacturers want is an educated populace. Sheeple are easier to feed. So why not wake up and be a pain the corporate ass today, hmmm? You never know, you could make a difference.

In the meantime, even though it's nothing more than a self-serving publicity and marketing ploy, it's still a step in the right direction, so hooray for Non-GMO Cheerios......sort of.