New Study: 80% of Consumers Would Pay More for Non-GMO Foods

[donnay]

New Study: 80% of Consumers Would Pay More for Non-GMO Foods
Biotech industry fighting against populace tide



Image Credits: AFP Photo / Robyn Beck / RT.com.

by Christina Sarich | Infowars.com | May 27, 2015

Want more proof that Monsanto’s demise is imminent? In a recently published Nielsen study of 30,000 consumers, 80 percent of respondents said they would pay more for foods labeled “Non-GMO.” Do we really need more proof that people are turning their backs on biotech-altered poison crops?

This doesn’t mean that people actually trust the ‘Non-GMO’ food label, and unless it has been verified, they shouldn’t. Even brands like Cherrios have stated that their product doesn’t contain GMO, but how can we be certain? Furthermore, foods like Xochitl tortilla chips were marketed as GMO-free, but were found to contain GM corn through an investigation by Consumer Reports.

Even though 61 percent of food buyers said they thought it was ‘very’ or ‘moderately’ important to purchase foods with a non-GMO label, exceeded only perhaps by the importance of avoiding foods with high-fructose corn syrup, most of them reported not knowing which labels to trust since there are multiple ways that companies claim non-GMO status on their food packaging.

Organic product sales were tremendous last year, and are expected to continue with their stratospheric rise. Sales of non-GMO products exceeded $10 million last year, according to Nielsen. Certified Non-GMO label sales grew by over $8 million last year, and are also expected to continue their upward trend. The Nutrition Business Journal released a report stating that organic food sales in the US were expected to reach $35 million this year.

Continued...

[Working Poor]

How could anyone not care about the quality of their foods? I guess Zippy and Angelac are among the 20% who think chemically produced foods are okay.

[phonetic lee]

How could anyone not care about the quality of their foods?

Add me to the list with Zippy and Angela please

[thoughtomator]

How could anyone not care about the quality of their foods? I guess Zippy and Angelac are among the 20% who think chemically produced foods are okay.

May they enjoy the food discount and have many infertile, obese grandchildren!

[juleswin]

I would pay more for a Mercedes Benz over a Honda accord and so would 99% of the consumers out there and yet more people will buy Honda accords over a Benz and Honda is not threatened by that fact. Sadly, with the cost of many things going up and current society being the guinea pig testers of GMO with very little downside to it, I dont think GMO producers profits are going to be threatened by GMO labeling laws.

This is why I don't understand why they fight it. It only makes em look really shady.

[Zippyjuan]

They said the same thing about organic foods. "Sure- I'd be willing to pay more for organic!" Organic foods sales- while growing strongly- now account for just five percent of all food sales in the US. Voting in polls does not always match voting with their wallets.

http://www.foodprocessing.com/indust...rcent-in-2014/

The U.S. organic sector has expanded significantly since OTA first began tracking the industry’s performance in 1997. In 1997, organic food sales totaled around $3.4 billion, and accounted for less than 1 percent of total food sales. In 2014, organic food claimed almost 5 percent of the total food sales in the U.S., and has consistently far outpaced the 3 percent growth for the total food industry.

When offered a choice between organic bananas at 99 cents a pound or regular ones at 69 cents a pound, most are still picking the regular ones.

[donnay]

I would pay more for a Mercedes Benz over a Honda accord and so would 99% of the consumers out there and yet more people will buy Honda accords over a Benz and Honda is not threatened by that fact. Sadly, with the cost of many things going up and current society being the guinea pig testers of GMO with very little downside to it, I dont think GMO producers profits are going to be threatened by GMO labeling laws.

This is why I don't understand why they fight it. It only makes em look really shady.

They don't look shady, they are shady.

[angelatc]

How could anyone not care about the quality of their foods? I guess Zippy and Angelac are among the 20% who think chemically produced foods are okay.

OMFG.

This is why legislation by large groups of uneducated people is so bad for the entire nation. I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chemicals" before making that statement again. You won't, but you should.

[angelatc]

I would pay more for a Mercedes Benz over a Honda accord and so would 99% of the consumers out there and yet more people will buy Honda accords over a Benz and Honda is not threatened by that fact. Sadly, with the cost of many things going up and current society being the guinea pig testers of GMO with very little downside to it, I dont think GMO producers profits are going to be threatened by GMO labeling laws.

This is why I don't understand why they fight it. It only makes em look really shady.

Denying that it will drive up all food costs makes the anti-science crowd look ignorant. Imagine that. Here's a thought: GMO free food is already labeled "organic." Leave the rest of us and our food the $#@! alone.

[Natural Citizen]

Denying that it will drive up all food costs makes the anti-science crowd look ignorant. Leave the rest of us and our food the $#@! alone.

I don't like the way that you throw the term "science" around. You're promoting corporate "scientism". Not genuine science. In fact, this scientism meme is what places genuine research in so much danger.

As far as prices? Meh. I don't care how much it costs. If I'm going to the grocery store, I want to know if the products are genetically modified. This allows me to make a choice. It allows me to participate in a genuine free market. It allows me to decide winners and losers. What you are promoting is mercantilism. This, of course, protects these industries who have hijacked traditional and genuine science from a genuine free market. Everyone knows that. And we continue to see them attempt to overthrow state rights by way of the revolving doors between the federal government anf industry in order to remove any mechanism that consumers will have in orer to participate in a genuine free market.

Here is another thought, angela. Why don't you leave my free market the $#@! alone? Hm? Why not? What do you have against a free market, angela?

[angelatc]

Label the chemikillz!!!

[Natural Citizen]

[jj-]

angela's point that substances used as food additives also exist is nature, doesn't take into consideration that synthetic food additives aren't completely pure.

For example, if you want to buy 'glycine', a substance that angela mentioned, you'll never find it in 100% pure form. When you go to the purer sources and ask them about the purity, it'll be something like 95%. The rest they sometimes don't even know what is, so of course they can't predict all the effects.

Pick your favorite substance and find out how pure it is from the provider. It will almost never be 100%. Some people get bad reactions from foods which have added vitamin A. Why? Because it's in a different form than the natural and not 100% pure.

By the way, the issue of additives is off topic. GMO foods might be harmful for completely different reasons.

[phonetic lee]

Citation please?

[Working Poor]

I don't like the way that you throw the term "science" around. You're promoting corporate "scientism". Not genuine science. In fact, this scientism meme is what places genuine research in so much danger.

I agree. I also agree with the free market statement you made. I do not want to force anyone to eat non gmo or organic or even grow their own food. Just don't tell me I can't eat what I want. I spend more than most people would on foods but I spend way less time at the doctor than most of my friends too. The only reason I eat is for nutrition. I feel that I could actually do without food and I have before not eaten. I can tell because of how my body feels if I have eaten something of no value or too much chemicals or pesticide. If these things do not bother you fine eat them.

[Natural Citizen]

Citation please?

Same place I got this comparison...

http://www.profitproag.com/

[Natural Citizen]

I agree. I also agree with the free market statement you made. I do not want to force anyone to eat non gmo or organic or even grow their own food. Just don't tell me I can't eat what I want. I spend more than most people would on foods but I spend way less time at the doctor than most of my friends too. The only reason I eat is for nutrition. I feel that I could actually do without food and I have before not eaten. I can tell because of how my body feels if I have eaten something of no value or too much chemicals or pesticide. If these things do not bother you fine eat them.

Yep. Losing sovereignty over our own bodies...

20 years from now, our grandchildren's children will be paying these companies royalties to justify our very existence if the angelas of the world have anything to say about it. Because...you know...FREEEDOM.

[dannno]

Add me to the list with Zippy and Angela please

You can pay the food bill or you can pay the doctor bill.

[phonetic lee]

Citation please?

Same place I got this comparison...

http://www.profitproag.com/

Thank you for being so specific

I believe this is probably the original source:

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stu...versus_non_gmo

Here are a couple of links explaining why it's clearly a hoax:

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/f...kes-alarm.html

http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com...-eat-soil.html

Here's the author's defense from the comments section at the Moms Across America link:

Ok Everyone. Time out. We totally get it that some people think this report is a lie. WE HEAR YOU. We got the point. We get that you think it is a soil report and it is meant to trick and fool people and you are mad. Totally get it.
Here is what’s so. I am not taking it down and I am not going to stop sharing it. The fact is that we don’t believe that you have “safety reports”, and frankly we don’t care, because the source is coming from a company that killed 400K people in Vietnam and deformed 500K children from their Agent Orange, of which some chemicals are now being sprayed on our fields of food. WE DON’T Believe Your Claims of Safety. What we see are reports on Mercola site of miscarriages in Argentina in villages around GMO field sprayed with glyphosate climbing to 100X more than the national average. What we see in Sierra Club Magazine, is our national birth rate is the lowest it has been in recorded history, biggest decline in immigrants, who happen to eat the most GMO cheap foods….What we see are OUR children whose health issues have SKYROCKETED since GMOs have been put into our food without our consent, and we see them get BETTER when we take them off GMOs. This corn report, even if it is exaggerated or even if it were soil…who wants their food growing in soil with 200X the level of formeldehyde in it that is proven to be toxic??? Even if this report is only a little bit true, WE MOMS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. We have the right to protect our kids. So nothing you can say about “no reports of harm” or “safety studies” matters to us, because we choose to be “Better safe than sorry”. Just like putting the seat belt on our kids every time we get in the car even though we know that it’s not “for sure” that we are going to get into an accident, we choose to take action to be safe. Your mother’s did and would still want you to do the same thing. Err on the side of safety, take care of yourselves, be cautious with what you eat because you are important. Moms love their kids. Nothing you can say will stop us from protecting our children.

[Created4]

Labeling laws would no more increase food costs than existing labeling requirements.

However, it is also foolish to think that labeling requirements would solve this issue. We already have mandatory labeling requirements for other things like tans fats, and yet our food supply is still full of trans fats.

Joel Salatin makes a good case against mandatory labeling.

Should the Federal Government Mandate GMO Labeling?

The real problems are subsidies that keep corporate commodity food like GMOs cheap. End the subsidies, and let people pay the true cost of GMOs, Big Dairy, meats, etc. When the farm bill was stalled last year, and the subsidies in jeopardy, Big Dairy threatened Congress and said a gallon of milk would probably increase to about $8.00. Across the country, a gallon of grass-fed raw milk direct from the farm is about $10.00. Not a huge difference. If people had to pay the true price of food, they would easily choose the healthier option.

YOU the Taxpayer are Funding the Agri Business Takeover of our Food Supply

[dannno]

Thank you for being so specific

I believe this is probably the original source:

http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/stu...versus_non_gmo

Here are a couple of links explaining why it's clearly a hoax:

http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2013/04/f...kes-alarm.html

http://thephysicspolice.blogspot.com...-eat-soil.html

Here's the author's defense from the comments section at the Moms Across America link:

So you like your corn grown in nutrient deficient soil?

[Natural Citizen]

"phonetic lee" - My source isn't from your link. As I said, it is clearly marked in the latter comparison.

I admire your persistence in sleuthing, however, and am interested in your wisdom. And, so, if you'd like to follow through on the major revelations that pertain to the issue in scope, then, perhaps take the time to validate the following sources and reports as well. I like to learn...

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration

Now, there are quite a few pages to study, mind you. But since you're interested in facts and sources with regard to the issue I'm comfortable that you'll see it through. You seem like a real go-getter, "phonetic lee".

Just whistle when your done going through those and I'll certainly discuss any inconsistencies and sources that you may question. I'm usually around some place.

[juleswin]

Denying that it will drive up all food costs makes the anti-science crowd look ignorant. Imagine that. Here's a thought: GMO free food is already labeled "organic." Leave the rest of us and our food the $#@! alone.

By labeling, I mean GMO or non GMO in every box. If that is the labeling requirement, the only cost increase will be the cost of the ink. Also we have had this discussion before, not all non GMO is organic. If I grow my hybrid bred cocoa tree with industrial produced fertilizer, that disqualifies my non GMO plant from getting the label organic. It can still be labeled non GMO.

[dannno]

Here's the deal p. lee.. some GMOs may be safe for consumption. Others are probably not safe for longterm consumption or for some individuals with certain conditions. Now let's ignore for a minute that some of these hazardous traits could be passed on to the food supply indefinitely through cross pollination from farm to farm, that isn't the end of the argument.

The argument is about the nutritional quality of "conventionally" grown foods which tend to use GMO seeds, which may or may not be safe, which are grown in nutrient deficient soil that is blasted with chemical fertilizers that don't contain enough micro nutrients to be very beneficial healthwise as well as chemical herbicides and pesticides. Each of those things, individually, may not be that bad. But all of them put together are a barrage on America's health.

It is in part why our medical costs have skyrocketed, along with being told lies about the benefits of heavy grain consumption by those very same scientists and people who control the food supply. The worst part is these large agri-businesses get huge government subsidies in the billions of dollars.

If you want to be a preacher of politicized corporate for-profit science, then keep going, you can join the choir with Angela and Zippy. You can be the baritone to Zippy's bass. Angela is definitely a soprano.

[juleswin]

whoa, just look at the difference in energy/calories. This makes me think go GMO if one wants to lose weight. Those numbers just cannot be real.

[phonetic lee]

... then, perhaps take the time to validate the following sources and reports as well. I like to learn...

Monsanto in US Foreign Policy

72 points of BRICS Summit Declaration

Now, there are quite a few pages to study, mind you. But since you're interested in facts and sources with regard to the issue I'm comfortable that you'll see it through. You seem like a real go-getter "phonetic lee".

All done, thanks. And now, I present my summary of the scientific evidence against GMOs:

[phonetic lee]

Here's the deal p. lee..

Thank you for summarizing your viewpoint above. Personally, I find the evidence against GMOs unconvincing, therefore I don't avoid GMO foods.

Your mileage may vary

[phonetic lee]

whoa, just look at the difference in energy/calories. This makes me think go GMO if one wants to lose weight. Those numbers just cannot be real.

Yup, the report appears to be falsified far beyond the mere issue of misrepresenting a soil report as a crop report.

[heavenlyboy34]

Especially this gaggle of uneducated people ->

OMFG.

This is why legislation by large groups of uneducated people is so bad for the entire nation. I strongly suggest you look up the definition of "chemicals" before making that statement again. You won't, but you should.

[heavenlyboy34]

n/m