An Interview with Jeffrey M. Smith
Editorial Article by Susan Booth with Jeffrey M. Smith
(Oct/Nov 2009)

In light of the seriousness of the subject of genetic engineering, it seemed extra important to me to interview Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the best-selling book, Seeds of Deception, and hear first-hand how we’ve been mislead by Ag biotech companies and the government about the health risks of GMOs. Smith has travelled the world to bring this issue to light, and as he tells us, this is a world-wide problem, but we can do something about it! ~ Susan

Susan Booth: You’ve done a lot of research on GMOs, and you’ve found out some things that are very alarming - everything from serious health problems, environmental problems… But, one question that a lot of people ask me is, "What is the difference between genetic modification versus just regular hybridization or selective breeding?"

BK464 Seeds of Deception

Jeffrey M. Smith: Genetic engineering is not natural. It carries unique risks and is fraught with unpredicted side effects.
In normal hybridization or selective breeding you take plants from the same species or related species and they essentially have sex and their offspring share genes from both parents.  With genetic engineering, you take a single gene or combination of genes from other species, and you manipulate the gene in the laboratory.  You add, typically, an "on switch" called a Promoter from a virus and other materials and then you force it into the DNA of the plant.  Then you clone the cell into a plant… The process of insertion, whether through "gene gun" technology or bacterial infection, plus cloning, causes massive collateral damage in the DNA. It leads to hundreds or thousands of mutations up and down the DNA, and hundreds or thousands of genes that can change their levels of expression in the natural plant.  These changes can lead to unpredicted side effects, such as new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or anti-nutrients.  And this is not theoretical.  They have actually found these types of things in the genetically engineered crops already on the market.

Booth: If it’s that dangerous, and has that many problems, why do they do it?

Smith: Well, FDA scientists wrote in memo after memo specifically invoking the words I’ve already mentioned (toxins, allergens, new diseases), saying genetic engineering carries different and unique risks. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing.  But, the White House [George H. W. Bush administration] had been convinced that genetically engineered foods would increase U.S. exports and our domination in world food trade. They ordered the FDA and the other regulatory agencies to fast-track GM foods.  So the FDA created a new position of the Deputy Commissioner for Policy in order to recruit Michael Taylor into a position of power over GMO policy. Taylor was Monsanto’s former attorney who later became Monsanto’s vice president.  And while he was in charge at the FDA, the Policy lied about the information that the FDA had.  It claimed that the agency had no information showing that GMOs were significantly different, whereas this was the exact opposite of what their own scientists were telling them. On the basis of that fiction, the FDA policy declared that absolutely no safety testing was necessary — that GM foods can be introduced if the biotech companies themselves say that they’re safe.  And that turned out to be one of the most serious decisions any government anywhere in history has made. It meant that we now are exposing the products of an infant science to everyone who eats and because of the self-replicating genetic pollution associated with the environmental release of GMOs, we also expose all future generations.

Unfortunately Michael Taylor, who was in charge of this policy, has just been assigned as the de facto food safety czar for the FDA under the Obama administration.

Booth:  Oh, my!

Smith: So, the danger continues.

Booth:  You talk about this in your books and videos… the revolving door between the biotech industry and the government and the regulatory agencies.  How can that be?  I mean, these aren’t elected officials.  But, they just seem to go back and forth between the two places and essentially regulate themselves.

Smith:  This is a constant characteristic of GMO regulation around the world.  We have individuals who did research on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone [rbGH] and then took positions at the FDA overseeing the approval of rbGH.  The former administrator of the EPA became a member of Monsanto’s board; the former US Trade Representative also went to Monsanto’s board; Linda Fisher went back and forth between the EPA and Monsanto and then the EPA.  It’s a constant feature, and it shows how the corporations have hijacked the regulatory agencies that are supposed to regulate them. That has left us in a very dangerous situation with respect to GMOs in our food supply and in our environment.

There are many people trying to work to change the way government functions, but we don’t have to wait for that in order to solve the GMO crisis, because people would avoid GMOs if they knew how dangerous they are for human health.  By simply educating a sufficient number of people about those dangers and providing them with Non-GMO Shopping Guides, they can make choices for healthier non-GMO brands and we can drive a tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing GMOs out of the market.  It happened in Europe ten years ago based on a single, high-profile food safety scandal related to GMOs.  It took only ten weeks from the day a scientist was un-gagged and could finally speak about the dangers of GMOs, until the tipping point was achieved. Within a single week, virtually every major food company in Europe committed to stop using GMOs.  It completely turned the situation around in the world.  If we had a bold and independent press we could do the same in the US.  But, since the press has been reticent in reporting the health dangers, we are delivering the message directly to those most receptive in the country about the dangers—those who already choose to eat healthy.  We’re conveying to them the knowledge that “Healthy eating starts with no GMOs" (through our Campaign for Healthier Eating in America) and providing natural food stores with Non-GMO Education Centers which display books, DVDs, CDs, and free Non-GMO Shopping Guides and brochures.  We want to get the word out so that those who already make food choices based on what they consider to be healthy can now add GMOs to the "Do Not Eat" Category.  If this becomes a popular notion among those who frequent the natural food stores, we could drive GMOs out of the market like we’re already doing with rbGH.

Booth: In Europe it appeared that once the population understood about it and the media was on board to educate people about what was going on with genetic engineering, then even though their government was in favor of it, the tide of public opinion changed that.

Smith:  Yes, public opinion led the government.  And in some cases the government is still resisting public opinion, like in the U.K. where the government just offered a hundred million pounds to promote GM crops in spite of the fact that 85% of the population is totally against them.  In other countries, however, the governments are resisting GMOs. But the leading element was not the government, it was consumers.  And consumer concern also forced food companies to withdraw GMOs from their foods.  So, we’re using that formula in the U.S. to create similar changes.

Booth:  And the United States, I understand, is one of about five or six countries that are heavily into GMOs, whereas in Europe they’ve almost virtually banned GMOs haven’t they?

Smith: Europe does not officially ban GM foods. There is a de facto ban by the food companies. To maintain market share, the companies committed not to use GMOs and therefore source ingredients from non-GMO countries or suppliers. There are some EU countries, however, that have banned the planting of GMOs. This "not-in-my-backyard" concept is spreading through Europe where many countries are demanding the legal rights to refuse any GM crops from being planted in their territory.  This includes countries like France, Austria, Greece, Hungary, and Germany.

Booth: Well, here at Azure we’ve been trying to purge our products of things that have GMOs in them, and we’ve been doing that for years… trying to be conscientious about not picking up new items that contain GMOs.  But, after reading your books and looking at your literature, it appears that there are a lot of hidden GMOs — for example, some of the enzymes that are used to make non-organic cheeses may be GMO.  More ingredients are genetically engineered than the "main" GMO items: corn, soy, cottonseed, and canola.  It feels like it’s impossible to stay away from this stuff completely when it’s not labeled.

Smith: As for the enzymes, additives, and colorings that come from genetically modified organisms, there’s been a general understanding among activists that it will be harder to deal with these often invisible ingredients than the direct GMO crop derivatives. The removal of GM enzymes, etc. from the food supply may occur later than the removal of GM soy, corn, etc. Fortunately, organic products are not allowed to use any of these GM derived ingredients.

As for purging your GMO-containing products, here’s good news. An organization called the Non-GMO Project has developed an industry-supported standard for making non-GMO claims. It supports consumer choice and is practically achievable by manufacturers.  There are some major food companies supporting this and many are actually on the Non-GMO Project’s board of directors.

My suggestion would be to contact the Non-GMO Project and then become a conduit of their information to your vendors. Urge them to put their products through the Non-GMO Project.  I believe that the entire natural food industry will end up going through and becoming non-GMO verified. As the awareness of the health dangers grows, natural foods stores will become the oasis for the growing number of avid non-GMO shoppers as people switch their brands to only those that have become non-GMO. The natural foods industry, however, will only have that unique advantage for a short period of time, as the rest of the food industry will also become non-GMO. So the early adaptors will benefit from the brand switching period.

The introduction of the uniform Non-GMO Project standard throughout the natural food industry makes it easier for everyone. As major companies like Whole Foods have already put products through the Non-GMO Project, this means that all of the co-packers and ingredient suppliers that support their 365 Brand have already been verified or are in the process of being verified.  And many of those companies are suppliers to your other brands as well.  So they can provide Non-GMO Project verified products to everyone..  Consumers also benefit because Non-GMO Project label is meaningful and defined. It is not just some self-defined criteria that might be quite a bit looser than what consumers are prepared to accept.

BK463 Genetic Roulette

Booth:  You talk a lot about the dangers of consuming genetically modified food.  For example, on the cover of your book Genetic Roulette you have "Sterility, Infant Mortality, Allergies, Organ Defects, Childhood Diseases…" and you’ve also said that the GMOs are particularly bad for children.  And yet children are the ones that are going to school and eating what the school provides (generally, unless they take their own lunch).  How do you handle school lunch programs where they use GMO soy fillers in the meats and use genetically engineered oils?  How do you safeguard your children from GMOs when they’re eating at school?

Smith:  There are a few ways, depending on a person’s situation.  We have a GMO-Free School Campaign which educates schools about the dangers, as well as educating the parents and entire community.  There are many schools that have transitioned to healthier foods and have even reported improvements in behavior and learning ability as a result of transitioning to freshly-cooked healthier foods. This is the case in Appleton, Wisconsin, which we include in our video, available on-line, called “Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals”.

We see many schools offering a portion of their products as organic or fresh or grown on-site, but not every school system has the ability to afford that or implement those changes.  Bagged lunches is obviously one way that kids can be protected… if they can carry healthier, non-genetically modified foods with them.  But, I urge parents to not just take steps to protect their kids, but also to contact us to implement a GM-Free School Campaign, because people want to rally around protecting children — not just parents, but the whole community.  There’s an infrastructure of parents associated with schools, there are reporters who always write on initiatives associated with local school systems.  We want to take advantage of that infrastructure and media reporting. We have a 60-page manual and a video, and a strategy to help get the word out to a whole community using school meals as the primary focus.

Booth:  What are some of the bad things that could happen to children who are consuming a lot of genetically modified foods?  I know you talk about allergies, and the fact that soy allergies skyrocketed in the U.K. when genetically engineered soy was introduced.  What other things should parents be worried about with their kids eating GMOs?

Smith:  Well, with allergies, I just found out… Emergency room visits due to allergies doubled in the United States in the five years following the introduction of genetically modified foods.  So, allergies are a grave concern.

To understand what could go wrong, if you look at the science related to GMOs and some of the evidence (the thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, the thousands of toxic and allergic reactions in humans and the various damage to the organs and systems… virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals), you realize that the range of things that can go wrong in the body of a child eating genetically modified foods, or even being born of parents who were eating genetically modified foods, is enormous.  One top biologist in the world recently told me that he sees the increase in so many health problems in the United States in the last ten or fifteen years, and he believes that the introduction of genetically engineered foods into the American diet is largely responsible for those changes.  So, these could be any of the "new" diseases, or the increases in diseases, from autism and allergies to obesity and diabetes, to digestive system cancers to virtually anything.

We have seen in laboratory animals for example, a compromised immune system which could also leave room for infectious diseases. We’ve seen damage to organs—their lack of proper functioning could result in all sorts of problems.  We’ve seen reproductive problems like sterility, changes in the sperm cells, and also changes in the DNA of embryos of mice that were born of parents that were fed GM soy.  There was even a five-fold increase in the death-rate of rats whose mothers were fed GM soy compared to those who were fed non-GM soy.  Over 50% of the babies died compared to only 10% when mothers ate non-GM soy.  And the size of the offspring is quite a bit less for the GM-soy eating group. There are similar results with genetically modified corn used in a government study done in Austria. The more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer babies the mothers had, and the smaller the babies were. 

Children’s digestive systems, their gut bacteria, their whole defense system is not particularly well-developed, and we find in the only human feeding study ever published, that genes can transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines.  Now, the fact that the digestive fires are less in children means that the DNA is broken down at a slower rate or not at all.  So, there’s more opportunity for the DNA to transfer into the gut bacteria.  Also, the gut bacteria in the infant, I’m told by doctors, is first populated by the bacteria inside the womb of the mother.  So if there are already gut bacteria problems and imbalances due to GMOs in the mother, then that’s also a problem.  If the Bt toxin, which is part of genetically modified corn, causes disturbance in the walls of the intestines, as it may in fact be doing, it might cause some kind of leaky gut which could cause toxicity in the blood.  And since the blood-brain barrier in children is not well developed, it could also result in toxicity of the brain, which could contribute to a whole host of some of the psychological disorders and learning disabilities.

I’m mentioning just a small list compared to what could be happening due to GMOs.  They’ve found, for example, that both soy and corn have higher levels of lignan, which was not supposed to happen. The metabolic pathway that produces lignan also produces Rotenone, a plant pesticide which is linked to Parkinson’s Disease.  So, there’s a huge number of ailments and problems that could either be caused by unpredicted changes in the food or exacerbated by those changes.  And the range of changes in the food is mind-boggling when you consider the huge number of changes in the DNA that is resulting from the process of genetic engineering.

Booth:  And this is all done to increase corporate profits.

Smith:  Exactly.  Corporate profits have driven the entire development and deployment of this technology.  I’m not against genetic engineering per se.  I’m not against the use of genetic engineering in human gene therapy when there’s a specific individual willing to take a specific risk.  I’m not against the use of genetic engineering in laboratories to produce certain products, although I do believe that there is a lack of respect for the unpredicted side-effects that can occur (as evidenced by a genetically modified food supplement that caused a deadly epidemic in the United States in the 1980s).  But, to deploy this into the entire food supply, given that most of the fundamental assumptions used as the basis for safety claims have been proven false, is simply one of the most irresponsible actions that any corporation or government has done in human history.

BK465 The GMO Trilogy

BK462 Don’t Put That in Your Mouth

Booth:  In some of the videos that you produce, the points were made that the genetic engineers are trying to "put a patent on Life"… trying to make Life actually an invention of man.  And this doesn’t go well with a lot of people… like the idea of "farmerless farming", and the corporations "kidnapping the food supply"… these are some of the phrases that are used by people that are interviewed on the videos.  One person made a really good point in saying, "Whoever controls the seeds controls the food; whoever controls the food controls the population."  This is really scary for a lot of people, especially when there’s a chance that natural seeds could go extinct.

Smith:  Yes, the potential for devastation is unprecedented.  We saw already the huge biodiversity of seeds and varieties go through a massive collapse in the last hundred years, accelerated by the so-called "green revolution".  Now we are seeing a grab also on the seed resources, primarily by Monsanto but by the four other bio-tech companies as well.  Monsanto is now the largest seed company in the world and they are consciously eliminating the non-GM seed choices in the categories of seeds where the GM seeds are available.  And they are hoping to introduce the technology called the Terminator Technology (not yet deployed but in the laboratory) where the crops that are grown would be sterile and not able to be replanted.  The stated goal of the Terminator Technology is to force the farmers who are saving seeds to the start using the catalogs of the seed companies to buy seeds each year.  When you think about the global implications of this, it’s devastating.

There are 1.4 billion farmers in the world that save seeds.  This means there are millions upon millions of varieties of seeds that have been cultured to work for specific climates and geographical locations.  If the bio-tech industry had their way (and their stated goal in fact was to genetically engineer 100% of all commercial seeds in the world), it would dramatically reduce the biodiversity, forcing farmers to pick from just this limited number of genetics available in the seed catalogs.  And we know that when you have a limited diversity of genetics, you are at risk of catastrophic crop failure, due to famines or blight, etc. This was exhibited by the devastating consequences of the potato blight in Ireland, for example.  So, if the bio-tech industry has its way, it’s further risking the food security of the entire human race in order to drive their profits.

Booth:  I understand that India is changing their GMO participation because of such a bad experience with GMO crops and they’ve actually had farmers committing suicide because they’ve gotten into so much trouble with debt because of crop failures due to the GM seeds.

Smith: India has a schizophrenic outlook on GMOs.  And it’s common in many countries where there’s a very strong pro-GM component of the government and a very strong anti-GM component.  What often sways the balance is if there is media coverage that can push the population in one direction.  I was recently in India for a couple of months and watched that battle, and helped it along. 

The U.K. Daily Mail estimated that 125,000 farmers in India committed suicide after planting Bt cotton and were not able to pay back the debts associated with investing in the seed and chemicals.  Thousands of farm workers in India have reported allergic reactions and rashes throughout their bodies as a result of picking the cotton.  And thousands of livestock, which include sheep, buffalo, goats, and cows, have also died as a result of eating genetically modified cotton plants or cottonseeds.  The deaths do not occur when eating natural seed, according to the farmers and investigators.  So, there’s plenty of evidence, even supported by some studies and by government pronouncements.  At the same time, there’s been a lot of independent evidence showing that the Bt cotton actually reduces average yield, and is not reliable.  But, the bio-tech industry continues to put out disinformation claiming that Bt cotton has saved and dramatically improved the cotton output and cotton industry, even using statistics from states that don’t even plant Bt cotton!  They claim great successes even where their product is not sown.

There are several in government there [in India] that believe that genetically modified cotton is very effective and want to push if forward.  Also, the disinformation campaign has pushed farmers to take up the technology in large numbers, even in regions where independent evidence shows without a doubt that those planting the Bt cotton have lower incomes.  So, it’s a big fight, and fortunately a famous Hollywood producer, Mahesh Bhatt, produced a 30-minute documentary called "Poison on the Platter", viewable at www.poisonontheplatter.com.  It’s based largely on my second book, Genetic Roulette, and I helped him launch it (we released it in Delhi in February).  It’s become the most talked-about film in India and it’s had a huge impact in galvanizing opposition among the population against GM crops.  I think that the pro-GM Minister of Agriculture responded by announcing recently that they would introduce genetically modified eggplant, tomato and cauliflower within three years.  This has escalated the fight between the two forces and we’re watching India very carefully.

On my website I commented on a recent report that there is a group that wants to introduce genetically modified mosquitoes in India!

Booth:  Oh, no!

Smith:  Imagine being hired to do a recall for defective GM mosquitoes!  The madness can be multiplied exponentially.  Mosquitoes give a very graphic example of genetic pollution with wings!

Booth:  Oh, my!  That’s really bad!

This truly is a global problem because I understand that even in Iraq the farmers that have been farming there for thousands of years are now having their natural seeds patented by Monsanto, so they can’t grow them anymore.  They’re also being asked to grow crops they don’t eat in their own country.  There’s also the problem of crops in Mexico where their native corn species is being taken over by the GMO pollen.  It just seems like a worldwide problem.  Is there any good news about all of this?  Everything seems so bad.

Smith:  Well, let me first comment that I can’t verify what I’ve heard about Iraq in terms of what’s being sold and planted.  I have read Iraq’s Order 81 which can be used by the bio-tech industry to push their products into the hands of farmers, but I don’t know if it has yet been used that way.  I can verify that the indigenous corn varieties in Mexico have been contaminated and that’s been known for a number of years.

There is a push-back, and the push-back is by individuals around the world, and also by many governments.  We saw in the United States in the last few years, starting in the health food store aisles and spreading to the decisions made by parents of young kids and then the general population, that Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone was dangerous and that the drugged milk was something to be avoided.  The push-back was so significant that Monsanto sold off its rbGH division to Eli Lilly.  Wal-mart rejected it; Starbucks rejected it; Dannon and Yoplait are planning to remove the rbGH from their products this year.  Fifty-five of the top 100 dairies so far have taken it out of some or all of their products.  And this shows the power of the tipping point in consumer rejection.  So, that’s excellent news.

We also see governments in Europe now trying to force changes in European policy so that they can keep their native agriculture free from GMOs.  And we find that the more people learn about GMOs the less they trust them and they don’t tend to go back.  Once people learn about the health dangers and the corrupt ways in which they were approved, they become immune to the spin of the bio-tech industry.

Also good news is the introduction of the Non-GMO Project, and the mass adoption of that by more and more in the natural food industry. We have seen more organizations around the country taking proactive stands in educating people.  In fact, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine on May 19th of this year made public a policy urging doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets, asking the government for a moratorium, for labeling, and specifically stating that the animal feeding studies with GMOs have linked GMOs causally to diseases such as immune system problems, insulin dysregulation, accelerated aging, gastro-intestinal problems, major organ defects, and reproductive problems.  We’re seeing more official condemnation of this obviously dangerous technology, and I think that’s going to spread through many more medical organizations this year.

Booth: I read your books and watched the DVDs and realized this is really very important for people to know about.  We’re now carrying these and your Non-GMO Shopping Guide, and we have the audio CD that’s cheap enough people can buy it to give away.  We’re offering these because this is so very important.  Are there other resources besides these, where people can go to get more information?  You mentioned www.poisonontheplatter.com.  Your own website is www.seedsofdeception.com.

Smith:  Our main website is actually www.responsibletechnology.org  We have a non-profit organization, the Institute for Responsible Technology.  And on that website we have quite a few resources, many of which are free and available to anyone, even to replicate, print, put on their own websites, etc.  We have a syndicated monthly column called Spilling the Beans.  We have an on-line video called Hidden Dangers in Kids Meals, and an on-line video called Your Milk on Drugs: Just Say No.  We have a 3-minute description of what we can do in terms of the tipping point.  We have a scripted PowerPoint presentation that people can download and use to speak about GMOs.  We have a couple of Pod-casts.  We will soon have available a video of me giving a PowerPoint presentation.  We have about 40-45 archived articles.  And our Spilling the Beans articles are available for people to make copies of and distribute, or put on their own website.  We are going to be implementing a stand-alone Non-GMO Shopping Guide portion of our website which will be interactive and people can then search by category for the non-GMO brands that they want within brand categories they shop for.

BK466 The World According to Monsanto

We’re going to be developing a section for medical practitioners.  We already have a section for retailers in the natural food industry called the Retailer Campaign Kit and that includes educational materials for the staff as well as a staff quiz.  It includes recommendations of how they can sponsor free public showings of the World According to Monsanto, and suggests that they use our four-part series of articles in their newsletters or websites.  Retailers are welcome to take a lot of the resources from our website and put it on their website or into their newsletters.  We would like them to become an active partner in our campaign because every natural food store is a trusted source of information about healthy eating, and we want those that are patrons of the stores to understand that “Healthy eating starts with no GMOs,” and to “Ask for non-GMO products.”

This is the revolution that’s going to start in our kitchens and in our natural food stores.  This is something that the entire natural food industry has been bitterly complaining about for years, but now we’re seeing that the industry itself has the capacity to end GMOs by mobilizing its enormous number of shoppers.  On that basis we could end this nightmare.

Booth:  I think you’re doing an excellent job!  I think this is an important subject for people to know about and you’ve made a lot of good information available that isn’t available on the labels, so I commend you for that.  You’re doing a very good job with that.

Smith:  Thank you so much.

Booth:  I really appreciate you taking the time to be interviewed today and help us get the word out to our customers and they can spread the word from there.

Smith: Great, I appreciate that.

Booth:  This is exciting!

Lingo Guide

GMO = Genetically Modified Organism

GM = Genetically Modified

GE = Genetically Engineered

Bio-Tech = “Bio Technology” and the science of creating GMOs

Monsanto = the leading corporation in the bio-tech industry and the largest commercial seed supplier in the world.

rbGH and rbST = recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone.  A genetically engineered drug that increases milk production in cows (created by Monsanto by inserting cow genes into bacteria).

Bt = Bacillus thuringiensis, a toxin traditionally used as an external (sprayed-on) pesticide for crops, now genetically engineered into Bt-Corn and Bt-Cotton so the plant itself contains its own pesticide.

Round-up Ready = A genetically engineered seed from Monsanto (soy, corn, cotton, canola, sugar beets) which does not die when Monsanto’s Round-up herbicide is applied to it.

 

Health Risks of GMOs
(as described in
Genetic Roulette, by Jeffrey M. Smith)
1. Sterility
2. Immune Dysfunction
3. Infant Mortality
4. Allergies
5. Organ Defects
6. Childhood Diseases
7. Inflammation
8. Chronic Illnesses
9. Liver Damage
10. Death

BK468 Unintended GMO Health Risks

 

Major Crops that are most commonly GMO:
• Corn
• Soy
• Cotton (Cottonseed)
• Canola

Other Crops commonly GMO:
• U.S. zucchini & yellow squash
• Hawaiian papaya
• Tobacco (some)

Foods which commonly contain GMO ingredients:
• Milk from rbGH treated cows
• Meat raised on GMO feed
• Aspartame (Nutra-Sweet)
• Cheeses
• Pharmaceuticals

BK467 Non-GMO Shopping Guide

Remember, organic foods are not allowed to be genetically engineered or contain GMO ingredients.  Find out more about how to avoid GMO foods in the Non-GMO Shopping Guide.