The “Non-GMO Project” seal: deceptive advertising?

The “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal: deceptive advertising?

by Jon Rappoport

January 5, 2015

NoMoreFakeNews.com

In this article, I raise important questions about the Non-GMO Project (twitter) and its famous butterfly seal of approval on food products.

The Non-GMO Project is, by far, the largest testing program of its kind in North America. For example, Whole Foods has submitted thousands of its products for verification, so their stores can display the Project seals.

What does the seal actually say?

The butterfly seal literally reads: “NON-GMO Project VERIFIED.”

I haven’t changed the capital letters or the lower-case letters. So I’ll ask: which words do your eyes go to? The words in all-caps?

Read only the words in all-caps. What do you get? “NON-GMO VERIFIED.”

That suggests the product in question contains no GMOs, doesn’t it?

But this is not the case, as I’ll show in a minute.

The seal’s message is actually: “The Non-GMO Project is verifying…something. What is that something?

The Project is verifying that its standard has been met—and, as it turns out, that standard is not “non-GMO product” or “GMO-free.”

Deceptive advertising?

Through the use of capital letters, the consumer could very well believe the product he’s bought has been tested and the results show there are no GMOs.

But here, in fact, is an excerpt from a statement on the Project’s own website:

Are products bearing the ‘Non-GMO Project Verified’ seal GMO free? Unfortunately, ‘GMO free’ and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. In addition, the risk of contamination to seeds, crops, ingredients and products is too high to reliably claim that a product is ‘GMO free’. The Project’s claim offers a true statement acknowledging the reality of contamination risk, but assuring the shopper that the product in question is in compliance with the Project’s rigorous standard. The website url is included as part of the Seal to ensure that there is transparency for consumers who want to learn more about our verification. While the Non-GMO Project’s verification seal is not a ‘GMO free’ claim, it is trustworthy, defensible, transparent, and North America’s only independent verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance.” [note: link and emphasis in the original]

In my opinion, the seal conveys one thing, and the website conveys another.

Furthermore, in the Project’s own website statement, which I’ve just quoted, they mention the word “contamination.” They explain that this is one of the reasons they can’t assert “GMO free” on any product. But what does “contamination” mean? It certainly indicates “gene drift,” doesn’t it? And also a transfer of genes during shipping or processing?

Drift takes Monsanto’s genes, which have been inserted into certain food crops, and spreads them on the wind to other food crops for which they weren’t intended.

The Non-GMO Project can’t identify them after they’ve drifted? The Project must have access to the full list of biotech genes and their makeup, in order to do accurate testing of food products at all. So if one of those genes ends up in the “wrong” food plant, the Project can’t find it?

If that’s true, then people who buy products with the Project butterfly seal could, in fact, be getting products containing all sorts of “drifted genes” that haven’t been noticed or identified.


power outside the matrix


Two other points. As far as I can discover by searching the Project’s website, I see no mention of testing for toxic pesticides or herbicides. Remember, the absence of GMOs in a food product doesn’t automatically mean that product is pesticide-free. These dangerous chemicals are sprayed on huge numbers of crops that contain no GMOs. (Note: I’m not suggesting that the Non-GMO Project is misleading the consumer re pesticides; I’m simply stating the consumer should know that food products holding the butterfly seal can contain these chemicals.)

And finally, the Project states it uses labs that do “quantitative PCR testing,” (Polymerase chain reaction) in order to look for GMOs. The PCR is a very sensitive procedure. It is prone to technician errors.

Under the surface of wide acceptance of the PCR technique, there is a significant controversy about whether the test can detect the amount of material it is looking for, rather than the mere presence of that material.

This is relevant to the Non-GMO Project’s stated function of discovering the percentage of foreign genetic material in any given food sample it examines. Can the Project really achieve this “quantification” on a reliable and regular basis?

On this issue, three scientists with knowledge of PCR have commented to me about the test, off the record, with the following: a) quantifying or determining the amount of a substance you’ve tested for and found is not readily doable; b) accurately quantifying very small amounts of a substance you’re looking for is probably not attainable; and c) the whole PCR process is fraught with the potential for error.

In 1996, journalist John Lauritsen interviewed Kary Mullis. Lauritsen quoted Mullis as saying: “Quantitative PCR is an oxymoron.” Oxymoron means “contradictory, incongruous.”

Mullis isn’t just anybody. He is the inventor of PCR and won the 1993 Nobel Prize for it.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at NoMoreFakeNews.com or OutsideTheRealityMachine.

This entry was posted in GMOwar.

22 comments on “The “Non-GMO Project” seal: deceptive advertising?

  1. From Québec says:

    “Mullis isn’t just anybody. He is the inventor of PCR and won the 1993 Nobel Prize for it.”

    LOL… Obama who started 8 wars, also got a Nobel Prize… a Nobel Peace Prize for crying out loud!

    This world has gone completely insane!

    Forget labelings… just ban GMO’s and toxix chemicals.

  2. TR M says:

    They are the only independent group trying to do verification. Of course we need better and more accurate tests. I would love to have things tested for Roundup but until I can I’ll go with the “organic” but that doesn’t mean it isn’t grown in soil that is toxic with lead! So I can stay away from “grown in China” (and others) that are known for pollution.

    The non-gmo project is a start and addressing only one angle but it is a much needed angle.

    It is sad that we have so many poisons in our food supply that we need multiple checks just to have a CHANCE at eating healthy. What a bizarre world.

  3. TR M says:

    Non-GMO Project = Conventional but as little GMO as possible
    Organic = Restricted pesticide and herbicide plus non-GMO
    Made in China = Heavy metal poisoning likely

    Of course the Monsatano corp would love to kill the first 2 or water them down so much as to be meaningless.

    What is needed is a inexpensive portable sensor that can detect glyphosate.

  4. bleak says:

    It’s out of control. The only way to assure you’re not eating their poisonous chemical garbage is to grow your own from heirloom/heritage seeds. And who can do that? Not me. I use my CheckGMO app on everything I buy (even non-GMO project labeled) but I have no idea what testing methods they use. It’s a small company’s (Brody Web Design) side project so who the F knows?

    Here’s an article. Oh, we are “baffled.” How did those pesky GMO’s get in there?
    http://www.naturalnews.com/048190_GMO_tortilla_chips_labeling.html

  5. Defiant says:

    Just goes to show all the folks who have been trusting this seal have been eating GMOs all along and are just fine!

  6. sandy says:

    I think it is an important thing to note that non GMO verified doesn’t tell you how much glyphosate is in the product and there’s some really terrible things about glyphosate that we need to worry about. Also even buying organic doesn’t clear us of any GMOs in our food anymore.

  7. Jan Steinman says:

    Don’t let “perfect” be the enemy of “better than what we got.”

    Why don’t you spend your time and energy fighting Monsatan, rather than people who are at least trying to educate consumers?

    In the meantime, know your farmer. Ask them about their practices. Visit their farm. You still won’t have the definitive answer regarding accidental GMO contamination, but at least you’ll have a better feel for your food supply.

  8. There is no happy medium – glyphosate needs to be removed immediately and totally from our foodstuffs and from our soils.

    • Jan Steinman says:

      “glyphosate needs to be removed immediately”

      No argument here!

      But fighting with people who want to reduce the need for glyphosate seems counter-productive, no? So why so upset with the “No-GMO” crowd?

  9. Sally Oh says:

    Trust organic done by the USDA who believes GMO and glyphosate are awesome? No thank you. You have the same drift problem with organics and it says so right on the USDA website, too.

    I support the non-GMO project and the label. I’m grateful they are pushing back and giving us an option.

    The best thing about the label? Uneducated consumers look at it and go, “What’s non-GMO?”

    • @Sally… oh Sally.
      Pushing back …how?
      What’s the option?

      Do you know how many products Rape (Canola) oil is in…do yourself a favor, for the next week look at the ingredients of every food stuff you buy from food stores for the words ‘Canola oil’.
      Should we talk about Soy oil.?
      Banning not labelling is the only way…otherwise its controlled opposition…exactly were the Corporation wants you. Dead in the water deluding yourself that you’ve gained something.

      • Kristin says:

        Thank you for pointing out that canola oil is anything but non gmo. Canola oil in its natural form was used in chemical warfare and is highly toxic. In comes the scientists and bam! It’s ready for consumption. If that’s not genetically modified I am not sure what is.

        • Jan Steinman says:

          Canola is not inherently poisonous. One can get the active ingredient in mustard gas from any of the brassicas. And there is GMO canola, mainly “Roundup Ready.” But not all canola is GM’d, or Percy Schmeiser would not have lost his farm in a lawsuit by Monsanto.

          Canola is actually a marketing term for rapeseed. The Canadian Farm Marketing Council didn’t think they could sell anything with “rape” in the name, so they re-branded it “can-ola” for Canadian oil.

  10. Sharon says:

    It’s time to empower ourselves by tending the Garden. It’s called the 3 step plan. Awareness, Intention and Practice. (Bruce Lipton – Biology of Belief)

    Support your local farmer or grow your own. Get your hands dirty…. feel the earth between your fingers and understand that you have so much power in the palms of your hands. Plants thrive when you pay them attention. They will offer up their bounty in return for your loving kindness. The only label you’ll read then is the seed label or the one on the vegetable that reads ‘tomato’ or ‘kale’.

    Do you think for one minute that any of those manufacturers have your ‘health’ in mind? They have ‘sales’ in mind. If something doesn’t sell, they add ‘something’ to encourage the craving like msg. That is generally hidden under ‘spices’ or ‘flavouring’…. and is used in sweet and salty foods.

    Do you think our ancestors would be proud of our “progress”…. We have removed ourselves from the ‘land’, moved into a polluted environment called a City to work as hard as we possibly can to put the same tomato and kale on the table. We need an expensive ‘house’ to live in while we commute to our ‘work’ and then die from the stress of putting the tomato or kale on the table.

    The only oils I personally use are cold pressed organic virgin coconut or olive oil. The coconut oil does not change when used for stir fries, and the olive oil is great mixed with apple cider vinegar or fresh squeezed lemon juice as a salad dressing. The coconut oil has an added benefit🙂 it speeds up your metabolism and the pounds just melt off of those GMO wheat induced waistlines.

    Have a great gardening day, and if you are in the south take your shoes off, feel the earth beneath your feet and offer a “Thank You for supporting me all these years” and get rid of all those ions that have built up inside of you so that you feel energized and refreshed.

  11. David Ten says:

    What K Mullis means is that the PCR test is inappropriate for gene testing whether it is a so called virus or whether it is from other organic material.
    PCR was developed to study proteins and peptides, not to isolate whole dna/rna strands since this is not possible.
    Identification of such dna sequences has to be performed prior to use of such methods and to date this has not occurred directly.

    What we have is the falsification of the ability to manipulate genetic material in the same way that viruses have also never been isolated, characterised or directly identified in any way.

    The criteria is precisely the same. If viruses cannot be isolated & identified directly then genetic material cannot be directly identified either.
    How would one be able to separate the millions of pieces of other mixed organic genetic material that exist intra-cellularly and extracellularly? fungi, bacteria, and own waste material!

    There is no method of direct isolation and therefore there is NO PROOF of this technical ability

    Genetics is another false paradigm that beguiles a stupid public body into the belief system that is required by incompetent science.

  12. Scott WB says:

    Even if GMOs are safe, the pesticides they spray on them sure are not

  13. Ana Cris says:

    I’ve just finished all paperwork for a “verification”, even though I don’t agree with non-GMO food or Organic food.. it was my job so I had to do it anyway

    It was pretty disappointing how they get you “Verified”, its ALL paperwork, they didn’t test my ingredients, they just asked for paperwork… at the end they were more worried about the money than any of my documents. I am against a lot of certifications… but this one in particular is the worst. Why do people even want a GMO project verified seal if products are already Organic? I really don’t get it, is like if some graphic on you label automatically make your food extremely healthy. This verification really pisses me off, it is very expensive and I still don’t find its purpose… Organic Certifications have their point.. but GMO project verified?… bah, you will only buy products more expensive.

  14. arcadia11 says:

    non-gmo project is not independent. again we have the enemy controlling the opposition.

    non-gmo project – united nations
    label it – united nations
    food democracy now – united nations
    oca – united nations
    slow food nation – united nations
    the future of food – united nations
    the center for food safety – united nations
    the right to know campaign – united nations
    organic seed alliance – united nations
    truth in labeling coalition – united nations
    fair trade – united nations
    union of concerned scientists – united nations
    say no to gmos – united nations
    etc etc etc

    gmos – united nations

    there is no such thing as a good un ngo.
    the whole labeling drama was the un distracting from
    the real issue – growing, spreading, and including gmos in our
    food. the issue was not and should never have been about
    labeling. millions of dollars were spent on that whole staged
    farce. someone made a great deal of money. and the
    ngos leading the programs managed to lose the lawsuit through
    amateurish errors. imagine that.

    developing gmos for mass poisoning of life on this planet and
    actually implementing the programs to carry it out
    is criminally insane in no uncertain terms. creating a huge
    movement to protest what you have perpetrated is a great idea.
    if you’re a psychopath. spending all that energy and money in a
    legal battle where losing was already planned, just to label
    the poison in our food, is normalizing the unthinkable. it is not
    okay to poison people. period.

    always check if you are dealing with a un group before supporting an
    org in any way. there is almost no such thing anymore as a grass roots food, water, human rights, or environmental group. the un is the major psychopathic institution under the aegis of which the most dreadful dregs of the planet have gathered.

    it is easy enough to check out these groups. those who are not familiar with the impossible reach of the united nations are in for a bit of a shock.

    circumspection – please. don’t feed the monsters.

  15. Charles M. Rader says:

    Jon, you missed the really deceptive non-GMO labeling game. It is very widely used to imply a difference between products that does not exist.

    For example, last spring I saw a box of Manischewitz matzoh with a non-GMO seal. It fact it was the biggest thing on the package. But the ingredients of Matzoh are just wheat and water, and there is no GMO wheat in commerce. All matzoh is non-GMO, whether the package has the fancy icon or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s