M&M Analysis: Altered Recipes in Europe Remove GMOs

The two wrappers.

Tweet
  I had a brilliant idea for a blog. At least I thought I did. It was a little exploratory project I thought would be interesting.

  I had two empty wrappers of Peanut M&Ms: one from Europe, and one from the US.

  I'd previously read articles about how food companies such as Kraft, Kellogg's, Heinz, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have altered recipes, and removed GMO ingredients, for distribution in Europe. So I wanted to see that practice in action.

  Obviously, these two wrappers would illustrate those changes, right? I simply had to translate and compare the ingredient lists from each wrapper.

  As it turned out, there was nothing glaringly different! I was bummed, and thought my project was a failure.

  Then the light bulb went on: there weren't any differences on the labels because the US still does not require genetically modified foods to be labeled (while countries in the European Union do)!

The ingredient list: basically the same. Or so it seems.

Different Label Requirements

  In the US, genetically modified sugar or canola oil, for example, is listed simply as 'sugar' and 'canola oil'.

  In countries where GMO labeling is required, the ingredient list says 'genetically modified sugar' or 'genetically modified canola oil'.

  In France, where I got the 'Euro-edition' wrapper, GMOs are required to be labeled. So the question is: why weren't the ingredients listed on my two Peanut M&M wrappers different?

Changing Recipes and Removing GMOs
  Well, that's simple. Because the candy company, Mars in this case, has altered its recipe and has taken out the genetically modified ingredients for European distribution. They want to avoid having the GMO label on their product, so they adjust.

  So they can do it! They just choose not to for their American consumers! To be honest, I find the practice extremely disturbing.

  Together Hershey's and Mars make up 70% of the US chocolate market, and spent $1.1 million combined to defeat California Right To Know (Proposition 37) last election. They would rather spend money to oppose labeling, than listen to the demands of US consumers and label GMOs.

  My goal isn't to take away your joy, and ruin your candy experience. I love Peanut M&Ms just as much as the next person. I just want to show that the food companies can make the same products without putting genetically modified ingredients in them.

"There's nothing sweet about GMOs".

Nothing Sweet About GMOs 
  They're not going to make any changes on their own however. They need a push. And it seems it needs to be a big push.

  We, as consumers, need to keep providing that push, and ask that genetically modified ingredients be removed from our food, just as it has been done in Europe.

  The push comes in the form of the 'there's nothing sweet about GMOs' campaign. It's simply asking Hershey's and Mars to break their ties with GMOs, and to remove them from products offered in the US.

Why no GMOs?
  I have previously written several posts (links listed below) that go into greater detail, but first and foremost: consumption of GMOs have never been proven safe. They have never been tested long term, and we are just now witnessing the potential health hazards that GM foods have on our health: spikes in infertility, obesity, Diabetes, Autism, Parkinson's, asthma, cancer, etc rates since GMOs' wide-spread introduction in the US in the late-1990s.

  There are environmental impacts as well: biodiversity loss, an increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening our farmlands, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

  And if you're curious, here are 10 GMO Ingredients in Candy:

1. Sugar (GMO Sugar Beets)
2. High Fructose Corn Syrup (GMO Corn)
3. Corn Starch (GMO Corn)
4. Soy Lecithin (GMO Soy)
5. Soybean Oil (GMO Soy)
6. Modified Food Starch (GMO Corn)
7. Fructose, Dextrose, Glucose (GMO Corn)
8. Cottonseed Oil (GMO Cotton)
9. Canola Oil (GMO Canola)
10. “Other” Ingredients (Isolates, Isoflavones, Food Starch, Vegetable Oil)

  I suppose my failed blog idea wasn't such a failure after all. Candy is just one small example of international companies changing their product to reflect the demands of their consumers; in Europe. It's done in many other products including soda, cereal, and other packaged foods.

  Here's my question: why can't American consumers enjoy the same 'luxuries' as European consumers?

 

RELATED POSTS:
Do You Know What GMOs Are? 
The Dangers of GMOs
The Harmful Effects of Soy
GMOs: What Can We Do?
California's Prop 37

LINKS: 
There's Nothing Sweet About GMOs Campaign
Going GM-Free. In Europe, But Not the US
Altered Recipes & Risks Associated with GMOs
GM Ingredients in Candy
Labeling Requirements: Europe
California Right to Know

Sugary Ban: Right Intentions, Wrong Execution

Mayor Bloomberg announcing extreme ban of sugary drinks.

Tweet
  Today is going to be a quick interruption to my vacation blogs. As much as I like to write about traveling, I needed a change up. Lucky for me, something popped up in recent days that gave me the perfect distraction.

  We've all heard about Mayor Michael Bloomberg's intention to ban the sale of large sugary drinks in New York City.

  I have to admit when I first heard about his proposal, I thought it was the right thing to do, and a great start to hopefully reversing our nation's obesity problem.

  Nationwide: 68.8% of adults are overweight or obese (35.7% are obese), and 31.8% of children and adolescents are overweight or obese (16.9% are obese). In New York City, more than half of the adults are overweight (34%) or obese (22%).

  So it is clearly just that: a PROBLEM. And something needs to be done.

  Regardless of what is causing Americans to become more and more obese with each passing year, I initially felt this extreme ban could potentially catapult us into working towards a solution. I mean really, when do you ever need a pop (soda, whatever you want to call it. OR juice -- which is just as dangerous to our waistlines/health as pop is) larger than 16 ounces???

  NYC and Bloomberg have been trendsetters in the past when it comes to health and adopting aggressive regulations. They were among the first to place bans on smoking in restaurants and parks, to prohibit artificial trans-fat in restaurant food, and require health inspection grades to be posted in restaurant windows.

  At first people complained and argued that those restrictions infringed on our personal rights and freedoms. But after a short time, similar restrictions have been adopted throughout the country. And throughout the world.

  Placing the health of our people and public safety ahead of personal freedoms.

Anything larger than 16 oz would be banned under Bloomberg's proposal.

  But I knew this 'sugary' drinks ban would cause an uproar. I could hear the arguments against it start before I even finished reading about Bloomberg's proposal:

  This is not America! What is happening to our freedom? This is not the business of the government! What will be next?

  After thinking about it for a few days, and thinking about the slippery slope we'd be stepping onto, I realize a widespread ban of sugary drinks would not be a good thing. Both politically and nutritionally.

  Politically, we'd be opening up a whole new can of worms. Dangerous, new precedents would be set, and there would be no turning back.

  And nutritionally, though I think at times we need a nudge in the right direction in this department, we need to learn personal responsibility on our own. Instead of banning, educate. What is it about sugary drinks that is harmful to our health? What is it about sugar that leads to obesity?

  If anything, now I hope Bloomberg's sugary drink ban re-opens the discussion, and makes people realize this is serious business. We DO have a problem, and we need to start searching for solutions.

 LINKS:

NY Times: Bloomberg Plans a Ban on Large, Sugary Drinks

US Obesity Rates 

NYC Obesity Rates