
Chipotle Says Adios to GMOs, as Food Industry Strips Away Ingredients - user_235711
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2015/04/27/402632212/chipotle-says-adios-to-gmos-as-food-industry-strips-away-ingredients
======
acheron
Remember that "GMO" opposition is anti-scientific nonsense, and has led to
millions of children left blind or dead [1], making it probably worse than
vaccine opposition, even if the vaccine opposition is more likely to affect
you personally.

[1] [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/2014/03/15/go...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-
blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-
problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/)

~~~
eli
I'm not sure the hyperbole is helping the debate. Chipotle using non-GMO foods
probably isn't causing anyone to go blind, right?

~~~
Vendan
Another company folding to bad science isn't helping people either...

~~~
shillster
Its called voting with your dollars.

~~~
Vendan
Just cause something is popular doesn't make it good science. The fact that
people vote against GMO's in this way is, if anything, depressing.

------
oskarth
It's frightening how many people don't understand the arguments against GMOs.

Read this:
[http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf](http://fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf)
and before making arguments, make sure your argument hasn't already been
responded to in the "Fallacy" section.

Of course, there are many non-scientific arguments about GMOs. I'm not talking
about those.

EDIT: Someone asked for a tldr. It's a useful skill to learn how to read a
paper (start with the abstract and the conclusion), but I'm pasting the
conclusion here anyway:

 _This formalization of the two different types of un-certainty about risk
(local and systemic) makes clear when the precautionary principle is, and when
it isn’t, appropriate. The examples of GMOs and nuclear energy help to
elucidate the application of these ideas. We hope this will help decision
makers to avoid ruin in the future._

~~~
13years
It is because the industry has done a great job as labeling the critics as
anti-science. Yet the source of the controversy for anyone who spends enough
time to look into it is other scientist.

It is somewhat ironic, that most everyone agrees the GMO companies are quite
evil in nature when it comes to their business practices. Yet the same people
say we should absolutely trust the same companies when they make claims about
their products benefits or safety.

I think part of this is because progressive science fans see the potential of
GMOs and latch on to the possibilities and ignore that we are still quite
immature with our understanding and implementation of the technology.

~~~
frostmatthew
> It is because the industry has done a great job as labeling the critics as
> anti-science.

It's not "the industry" doing the labeling, scientific consensus isn't so
easily bought - if it were oil companies (who have _far_ more money than
Monsanto et al) would have made sure the science on climate change was on
their side.

In another comment[1] I provided several links you may find useful in making a
more informed opinion.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9451873](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9451873)

~~~
13years
I think you highly underestimate the influence of the this industry and the
pressure it can exert. "U.S. Government Planned To “Retaliate & Cause Pain” On
Countries Refusing GMOs" [http://www.collective-
evolution.com/2014/07/30/wikileaks-cab...](http://www.collective-
evolution.com/2014/07/30/wikileaks-cables-reveal-u-s-government-planned-to-
retaliate-cause-pain-on-countries-refusing-gmos/)

------
vdnkh
>"...They blame it (horrific profits) on consumers getting concerned about
what they put in their bodies."

Even though health food has become fashionable (for perhaps less than rational
reasons), I believe that greater awareness of what you eat is extremely
important and I'm glad it's becoming mainstream. Now if only they would stop
putting so much sugar in bread...

~~~
Vendan
as much as I hate the anti-GMO stuff, cause in reality, we've genetically
modified everything we eat through thousands of years of forced selection, I
am all for better bread. I bake my own with minimal sugar and gluten, and it
is soooo much better then store bread, and really makes a sandwich
amazing(note, when I say minimal gluten, I mean no extra gluten, not gluten
free flour).

~~~
Kurtz79
I believe you, but I really think that has absolutely nothing to do with GMO,
raher than the simple fact that fresh, homemade food is intrinsically better
than store bought food, which is usually tuned for aesthetics and long shelf
life as opposed to flavor.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Not really true! All of our grocery stores hereabouts bake every day, in-
house.

And don't assume a restaurant does a worse job than you of managing their
freshness. They buy from the same grocery most likely. In fact, the grocery
you buy from is a store; their fresh food is managed quite well. In fact
everything you make is worse than that, because you have to buy it from them,
THEN make something out of it. So its not as fresh.

------
bane
Good, let's rely on random genetic mutation instead. Because we know that only
produces healthy organisms that are safe to eat.

(/sarcasm)

~~~
revelation
Selective breeding, the ancient form of GMO, which these people interestingly
don't seem to object to, uses inbreeding and other techniques that are in fact
known to produce unhealthy organisms.

~~~
federico3
Because breeding is thousands of times slower at producing mutations and it
gives researchers (and society in general) enough time to assess the health
effects of a crop. In 2015 we are still learning about crops that has been
around for centuries.

------
paulornothing
>"I don't think this is about GMOs being harmful or not being harmful to your
health," Ells tells The Salt. "It's a bigger picture.

That mentality is what kills me about all of this. Let's make decisions
contrary to what the evidence shows. I know this is probably a smart move
because I'm sure the anti-gmo movement people would love to have a company to
crusade against like Chipotle. I still don't like it.

------
josefresco
Seems broader than just GMO's:

 _Pepsi announced it was getting rid of aspartame Kraft announced it was
dropping artificial dyes McDonald 's said it would start sourcing chicken
raised without antibiotics Nestle declared it would dump artificial colorings
and flavorings_

It seems blanket statements are bad for _healthy GMOs_ but also have a
secondary positive effect elsewhere within the food industry.

------
gotothrowaway
Like many here, I'm confused with how people could be upset with GMOs but not
random mutation. Either could result in the same vegetables.

It turns out - when talking to strongly GMO-opposed persons - it's usually not
the genetic modification they're worried about. Instead, it's that a crop has
been showered in roundup before we eat it. Saying "anti-GMO" has become a
simpler way of saying that you're anti-roundup-sprayed-crops.

Even though I disagree with this redefinition, I've found it to be common
among anti-GMO parties. I also consider their real argument much more
respectable than actually being opposed to arbitrary genetic mutations.

~~~
gregd
When a seed is _genetically modified_ to support wide spectrum herbicide use,
does the nuance really matter? A lot of people in this thread are poo pooing
the anti GMO movement, when a lot of anti GMO folks are against genetically
modifying food to support corporate greed. Monsanto isn't an angel sent from
the heavens to feed the starving.

------
blinken
> "The strongest scientific evidence calls for Americans to increase their
> intake of fruits and vegetables.

This. Hint: the problem isn't the GMOs in that Big Mac you're eating

------
kissickas
I'm glad this trend is so far limited only to a few companies that I can
easily boycott. There's even a group on the "Buycott" app against anti-GMO
companies.

It would really be great if there were a three-letter code we could use to
demonize Monsanto and Syngenta's harmful patent practices and shift the
discussion to where it used to be and still should be.

edit: just adding a link to a recent John Stewart segment, which will
hopefully stop some of the fearmongering [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-
UPHLJ31A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY-UPHLJ31A)

------
jleyank
Just a reminder to the "all GMO is bad" crowd - you're condemning yourself to
a life of needles or a mechanical implant if you have or get type-1 diabetes
(lack of insulin production). With genetic modification, it's possible to
transfect genes to start insulin production but that would make the recipient
a GMO...

As people as written, this subject is nuanced. As best you can, try to
understand what is involved rather than just listening to the noise.

------
ariendj
Is it just me or does this article look like native advertising?

------
whatok
no GMOs while eating a burrito bowl with 1.5k calories

~~~
digitalzombie
I think it's decently price for the amount of calories you get.

I get it's 1.5k but it's not the corporation's responsibility to regulate how
a much a person eat. I'm glad that we have laws posting calories count and I
think it's good enough. You can eat half and save the rest or if you work out
for 2-3hours then 1.5k calories is pretty nice.

I did body building for a bit and I use myfitnesspal to count my calories. I
had a food scale and a measure cup too. I don't get why we have to shame a
food place for giving us a good deal. If anything have social programs to
raise awareness to obesity.

~~~
whatok
No doubt, I agree with you 100% and think individuals should be allowed to
make their own choices based on the information provided. That said, there is
some definite marketing wizardry with this along with "organic" ingredients
and not-so-subtle suggestions that both are somehow automatically healthy for
you.

------
spacemanmatt
Am I the only one who avoids Chipotle because it's crappy, even if they used
organic/free-range/grass-fed/constantly-hugged meat and vegetables, only?

~~~
lbotos
But do you eat fast food? In the fast food world, Chipotle is pretty high up
on the "brand perception" scale. Sure, it's not incredible, but it "feels"
better than eating Wendys/McDonalds/Burger King. (I don't eat fast-food much,
but my bias is towards Chipotle when I do.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> But do you eat fast food? In the fast food world, Chipotle is pretty high up
> on the "brand perception" scale.

Chipotle aims for a fast casual ambiance (which can be a reason to prefer it),
but to me the food quality seems to be between lower-end fast-food places like
Taco Bell and better fast-food places like El Pollo Loco.

