GM Cheerios Gets Rid of GMO Ingredients!- Commitment to Health or Marketing Strategy?

When people think of GMO’s, a lot of people think of mutations, lab experiments gone wrong and the negative impacts that it has on the environment and consumers.


There are experts on both sides of the debate that give valid arguments for and against the use of GMOs. Generally, popular opinion is leaning against the use of GMOs. It’s not natural, how can it possibly be healthy to have lab-produced foods or ingredients?

Regardless of the what you believe, it is important to learn the information presents.

In an article on, several proponents of GMOs compile an op-ed that attempts to put General Mill’s decision to get rid of all GMO ingredients in perspective.

They point out that in their statement, GM claimed that they understood that the GMOs were approved by the FDA and other government agencies. Additionally, the GMO ingredients in Cheerios are only minor components of the product, so they claim that the change will not do much. They go on to conclude that the decision was mostly rationalized by trying to market their brand as being healthier and safer than others.

Look at this baby.

If this was your baby, would you want him eating GMO-based ingredients? Even if GMOs are completely safe, if there’s any debate surrounding it, parents aren’t going to take a chance.

The interesting part of the arguments presented in the article is not whether GMOs are good or bad for people, but the precedent that General Mills is setting with their decision. The GMO movement is relatively new and that’s why there is a lot of debate surrounding its impact on society.

By banning the use of genetically modified ingredients in Cheerios, GM could have potentially set off a chain reaction among other brands and even other companies.

The problem is that companies cannot simply just follow suit and try to earn the “GMO-free” label if GMOs can have a positive impact on food production costs and efficiency (and whatever other benefits its proponents argue for). The result could be the same as the “organic” movement which was counterproductive by the end of it.

We will have to wait and see if General Mill’s decision was beneficial or not.