Hi stranger! Signing up for MypetMD is easy, free and puts the most relevant content at your fingertips.

Get Instant Access To

  • 24/7 alerts for pet-related recalls

  • Your own library of articles, blogs, and favorite pet names

  • Tools designed to keep your pets happy and healthy



or Connect with Facebook

By joining petMD, you agree to the Privacy Policy.

Select the type of pet you have to find

essential nutrition advice for your pet.

Is GMO-Free Pet Food Safer than Regular Pet Food?

ADVERTISEMENT

Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are becoming an ever increasing part of our human and pet food supply. What does that mean for your pet?

 

What is a GMO?

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), GMOs are "…organisms whose genetic material (DNA) has been modified in a way that does not occur naturally; e.g., through the introduction of a gene from a different organism."

 

What is the FDA's Position on GMOs?

According to its website, the "FDA [Food and Drug Administration] supports voluntary labeling for food derived from genetic engineering…." but does not currently require such labeling.  Nevertheless, "foods derived from genetically engineered plants must meet the same requirements, including safety requirements, as other foods, such as foods derived from traditionally bred plants."

 

Why are Some Pet Food Ingredients Genetically Modified?

According to the FDA, genetic engineering is used by scientists to introduce new traits or characteristics to an organism. "For example, plants may be genetically engineered to produce characteristics to enhance the growth or nutritional profile of food crops."

 

5 Common Myths about GMOs

 

1. GMOs are so new that we know nothing about them. According to the FDA, "Food and food ingredients from genetically engineered plants were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s."

 

2. Food with GMOs are unregulated.

According to its website, the "FDA regulates the safety of foods and food products from plant sources including food from genetically engineered plants."

 

3. Foods with GMOs are unsafe.

According to the FDA, "Foods from genetically engineered plants must meet the same requirements, including safety requirements, as foods from traditionally bred plants." In fact the FDA "…has a consultation process that encourages developers of genetically engineered plants to consult with FDA before marketing their products. This process helps developers determine the necessary steps to ensure their food products are safe and lawful."

 

4. Foods with GMOs are less nutritious.

According to FDA evaluations, "foods from genetically engineered plants…are generally as nutritious as foods from comparable traditionally bred plants."

 

5. Foods with GMOs are more likely to cause an allergic reaction or be toxic. According to the FDA evaluations, foods from genetically engineered plants "…have not been more likely to cause an allergic or toxic reaction than foods from traditionally bred plants."

 

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Genetically Modified Organisms – Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

What is Grain Free Pet Food, Really?

6 Pet Food Claims that Should Make You Suspicious

Comments  27

Leave Comment
  • No thank you
    04/21/2015 08:05am

    Funny when the FDA is basically run by former Monsanto board members. I for one will avoid pet food that has corn and soy. Not good for them anyway. I feed raw so know exactly what is going in my dogs mouths. GMO has not had long term studies done in the US and severl other countries call it into question. It is labeled or outright banned in over 60 countries.

  • 04/21/2015 07:36pm

    Do you really think you know what is going into your dog's mouth when giving him raw food?? You know that it is not just the corn and soy crops that have been genetically modified, right?
    The GMOs have been study since the early 80s and commercialized since the early 90s. How much long do you need to study them to start trust this biotechnology?
    But the funny is that for the crops improved by the conventional breeding programs which, if you don't know, involves radiation and chemical mutagenesis (and which is not considered GMO although it alters the genetic composition of the organisms) you don't feel the need for any studies or the slight concern.
    What about getting a little more information about this GMOs subject?!

  • 04/22/2015 09:51am

    Yes I do know exactly what my animals are eating as I know my sources. I don't buy from grocery stores thank you. GMO is designed to be doused in Round-Up. Also if you know about trans genesis you should also be aware that it is hit or miss at best. We use it in our lab at work. Sometimes your target is hit, sometimes it is not, sometimes it shows up where it shouldn't, sometimes it has very unexpected consequences. There have been NO long term feed studies done in the US on GMO as Monsanto will not allow it. Everything long term has been done in other Countries where Monsanto does not have the same control. What those studies have found is quite alarming. Once again I say no thank you.

  • 04/22/2015 02:17pm

    You're lucky to be able to produce your own cows, pigs and chickens and to feed all of them with crops that were kept in your family for centuries. Otherwise, I don't see how you can be so sure about what you give to them. About the GMO that "is designed to be doused in Round-Up", you're talking about only one of the many GM crops developed (so don't generalize it) and you don't have to use Round-Up to grow it, it was created to be resistant to a specific herbicide (glyphosate) that is sold by numerous manufacturers (such as GlyphoMax from Dowagro, or TouchDown from Syngenta). But it doesn't oblige you to use it! It is just useful to enable killing the infecting weeds and save your crop!
    That it and miss that you talk about I do not understand. And wvwn more with the new CRISPR/Cas technology, it is really site-directed and very accurate. I am a plant biologist and work with transgenic plants (in a public institute, with no connection with any corporation and not proffiting any money with our work) and would much appreciate if you could share with me those alarming studies you're talking about.

  • 04/22/2015 03:50pm

    I get locally sourced meat that is humanely raised. so yes I do know what they eat. Glyphosate is routinely used on GMO crops of all kinds not just specific ones and farmers are even encouraged to use it straight across the board to "dry" their crops for harvest. There are tons of sites that you can find the studies on. I get sick of posting them over and over. I also find it difficult to believe that only the Scientists in the US are "correct" in their assessment. www.responsibletechnology.org/health-risks has loads of stuff at the bottom and took me about 2.5 seconds with Google. The longest study that Monsanto did was 90 days. 90 days doesn't show any long term anything. 2 years with rats will show much better data and has.

  • 04/29/2015 05:53pm

    The infecting weeds are part of the biodiversity of the planet and comprise foods for plants and insects like Monarch Butterflies. In a way GMOs may be reducing biodiversity this way. The consequences of removing a species are never easy to see.

  • 04/29/2015 02:07pm

    Tina, please provide the sources of your information? It is so distorted and wrong IMHO that I need to see the actual scientific data your comments are drawn from to understand why you are saying these things? For one, LESS glyphosate is needed on genetically altered plants AND it is the least toxic of all chemicals you can possibly use when growing your food. http://www.wafriends.com/PesticideToxicityChartSmallFlyer-1.pdf

    A good source of accurate information on genetic engineered foods can be found at http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/03/20/myth-busting-are-synthetic-pesticides-used-with-some-gmos-more-dangerous-than-natural-ones/ written by a variety of scinetists.

    Just for starters, it boggles the mind that people who are "anti" GMO would prefer to see the practice of slaughtering young calves to harvest the rennet to be more appropriate than using the synthetic rennet now made to produce about 90% of cheeses. Why do people want to promote the barbarism involved? And are you aware that your sweet potatoes that everyone enjoys so much were genetically modified with bacteria by mother nature herself? http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112.full.pdf

    I have provided some supported facts here, so how about you do the same?

  • 04/29/2015 02:34pm

    westcoastsyrinx
    actually there IS something to label in GMO foods - that they contain GMO's.
    do you work for Monsanto? because it sure sounds like you are an advocate.

  • No GMO
    04/21/2015 09:10am

    According to my vet Because GMO food is grown with pesticides and herbicides the incidents of cancer in pets is increasing markedly. He says this has been documented over and over again. (same with our human children.

  • 04/21/2015 07:58pm

    Ok, let me lighting you. ALL crops (even the so called "organic", "natural" and "biological" ones) care the use of pesticides and herbicides. It is the only way to control pests and infestation, and this way reduce the plantation losses or even save them from complete loss. Then it really depends on the products used, amount, period and duration.
    Some of the GM crops, like the BT corn for example, where developed with the exact mean of reducing the use of these products. In this case (BT corn) the plant is able to produce a small protein that will kill the worse corn pest (an insect called European corn borer) which will avoid the use of huge amounts of an insecticide to kill this bug. So, in the end, the GM crops have LESS pesticides and herbicides than the others!
    And just to avoid some concerned comments on this BT corn. The protein produced by this corn plant exists in the nature for a long time (is commonly produced by a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis) and it was thoroughly studied and tested before, during and after these plants were introduced in the fields. Actually there are some "biological" plantations where this bacteria is spread (alive) over the corn plants to reduce the borer attack.
    Just some facts. If you want I can give you more info on this subject.

  • 04/21/2015 11:07pm

    Actually, although that crop MAY use less of the particular pesticide used to control that particular pest, it in no way reduces the amount of herbicide since an herbicide only controls other plant species, not pests. BT crops actually use more herbicides to control weeds when conventional crops would be killed by those herbicides. So BT crops are more dangerous to our health since they are soaked with Roundup which has been proven to cause serious health problems. And we have no idea what other health problems may be found to be caused by long term usage of Franken-food!

  • 04/29/2015 02:24pm

    Dear Psychoforkaats; "BT crops actually use more herbicides to control weeds when conventional crops would be killed by those herbicides. So BT crops are more dangerous to our health since they are soaked with Roundup which has been proven to cause serious health problems."

    Just where are you getting your information from? I bet you didn't pay for a biochemistry course or anything that could give you credibility for your comments. As a result, you are not even getting the terminology correct.

    BtK is sprayed on NON GMO crops because the GMO crops already have the BtK within the stem of the plant, where it is needed to kill the PESTS, (not plants), that try to eat the corn. When it is sprayed on NON GMO crops it can end up on produce, but can't when the BtK is already in the stems of the plant, killing the catepillars that want to kill all your corn crops. When the plants are altered genetically they are PROVEN SAFE unlike the other methods of agriculture where it is up to the farmer to decide how much to spray on their crops and when, in order to avoid the catepillars from destroying their crops. The only food intolerances I have, even though I love the flavor of them, are with organic produce grown by friends, because of the chemicals they have to use to provide commercially viable crops.

    "And we have no idea what other health problems may be found to be caused by long term usage of Franken-food!"

    You have been lied to if you believe that. Genetically modified crops are tested up down and sideways before release is give for human consumption and you will not find one single case of illness or death that can be directly linked, with scientific data, to geneticially modified foods. As for "Franken-food," WE change genetically as we age, as do your pets, so what you think this "Franken food" term accomplishes, other than fear mongering, I can't imagine. Perhaps you have been eating too many organic products sprayed with chemicals such as rotenone, neonics, and other lethal chemicals?

  • 04/29/2015 04:22pm

    Actually, crittersmom, your vet is very very wrong, as there are less chemicals used on genetically modified crops. Try doing some real research on this topic and you will find that organic agricultural practices use more lethal chemicals at times. Genetically engineered ingredients have been PROVEN safe, whereas conventional and organic agricultural practices have been allowed to continue without any scrutiny on their choices at all.

  • Corporate Greed
    04/21/2015 10:02am

    I agree with Tina Martin. GMOs are not the problem, the FDA and Monsanto are the problem. They stand to profit well to the disadvantage of the consumer and smaller manufacturing businesses.

    What's next? Patents on eye color? Then everyone with blue eyes will be sued for infringement on a patent?

  • 04/21/2015 08:21pm

    I will not defend the FDA, Monsanto or any other corporation that is somehow profiting from these developments.
    Actually, I think we should try to stop these improved crops to be patented, but rather to be freely distributed by the people who need them.
    But I also have to recall the BT crop case (that I already mentioned in a previous post) where the GM crop seeds are commercialized by the exact same company that sells the pesticide used to kill that bug. In this case, the company would have more profits if that GM crop didn't exist (to be able to sell much more pesticide). So why developing and distributing it?

  • 04/29/2015 02:48pm

    SeuDonaMuffy, while you are on the right track, the companies that come up with products they can patent, need to do so to recoup their losses. Expecting Sygenta, or Dupont, or Monsanto to fork out money for R & D year after year without expecting them to get some sort of compensation is gross ignorance that is being spread around the net by people who know nothing about business practices. A patent is insurance the company buys to ensure they get their money back, and it only lasts for a certain number of years, and then everyone can do what they want with the product. Monsanto's patent ran out a while ago, and lots of other companies are now using Monsanto's research for their own benefit.

    Again, I wonder how many people on this page who are so against "GMO's" are prepared to go back to the barbaric practice of slaughtering young calves to harvest the rennet for cheesemaking instead of using the GMO cheese they now eat, or if they understand that nature itself has been doing the same type of genetic engineering as with sweet potatoes. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/04/14/1419685112.full.pdf

  • Not buying it
    04/21/2015 09:34pm

    The problem with each one of these statements is that they all start with
    "according to the FDA", after countless lies and instances of deceit hopefully most of us realize that you can't believe anything that the FDA or any government agency tells us? The fact is that most developed nations don't believe that GMO's are safe and are banned including Australia, Japan and every country in the European Union. The FDA is nothing more than a subsidiary of Monsanto.

  • No GMO's
    04/21/2015 10:40pm

    Yes, GMO's have been "studied" for many years. Which always makes me ask the same question, if GMO's are so damn safe, then why aren't GMO products labeled? IF they are safe then there shouldn't be any problem with letting the consumer be fully informed of the GMO's in whatever they are purchasing. Same for dog/cat food.

  • 04/29/2015 02:27pm

    The labels that provide any information are already on all our food. They are presently called the guaranteed analysis and ingredient list. There is nothing different about something produce with one form or agriculture or another but I can tell you that genetic modification is the safest of ingredients you will find, and you would know that if you did any REAL research where you have to pay for the data you need.

  • 04/29/2015 02:41pm

    There is nothing to label, unlike conventional or organic foods that HAVE NOT been studied as genetically modified foods have.

  • GMO's should be banned!
    04/21/2015 10:54pm

    One of the known hazards with gmo crops is some are bred to withstand herbacides such as RoundUp in order to be able to survive extensive spraying in order to control pervasive weed crops from overtaking the food crops. Therefore these crops, which would normally die when sprayed, now survive and flourish, allowing us and our pets (if we're stupid enough to eat gmo crops) to consume greater amounts of the toxin Roundup, which has been proven to cause multitudes of serious health problems. Also, consuming meat from animals fed gmo crops is just as dangerous as eating the crops, and most animals slaughtered for meat are fed the cheaper gmo crops. GMO's are just bad all around!

  • 04/29/2015 02:39pm

    Dear Psychoforkaatz: "One of the known hazards with gmo crops is some are bred to withstand herbacides such as RoundUp in order to be able to survive extensive spraying in order to control pervasive weed crops from overtaking the food crops."

    Have you ever even talked to a commercial farmer? What you are saying is the opposite of actual farming practices. Very little RoundUp is needed on genetically altered crops, and much more control can be used around WHEN the spray is used, so it never has contact with the actual produce. And what, exactly, is wrong with RoundUp? It is less toxic than most of the everyday products you are happy to ingest.

    "Therefore these crops, which would normally die when sprayed, now survive and flourish, allowing us and our pets (if we're stupid enough to eat gmo crops) to consume greater amounts of the toxin Roundup,"

    Where is your factual data coming from here? Please provide scientific references that are credible, because I know, as someone trained in horticulture, that what you say is very wrong.

    " which has been proven to cause multitudes of serious health problems."

    Please provide references for this, and I mean credible scientific data that is reproducable, not some site selling supplements or remedies. I know that those who fear genetic engineering come up with a lot of psychological problems, but I want to see factual information.

    "Also, consuming meat from animals fed gmo crops is just as dangerous as eating the crops, and most animals slaughtered for meat are fed the cheaper gmo crops. GMO's are just bad all around!"

    Again, please provide peer reviewed, reproducable sources for your information that hasn't come from some snake oil web page?

  • 07/17/2015 01:21pm

    How about letting a farmer answer some of these questions? Right from the ‘horse’s mouth’, so to speak.
    I would like to know your credentials, please, Westcoastsyrinx. Where are you from? In which country did you get your degree? I'm not judging, I'm simply asking for relevant information to the case at hand.
    Some of what you're saying might be true for other countries that are not in the United States. Such as in Mexico, where it's easier to get by with shady farming practices and have the FDA inspectors turn a paid blind eye. That’s not a dig, it’s a fact. I met a not for profit owner who helps farmers in third world countries, who sell to the states, get paid fairly, tell me his first hand experiences of this, and that these practices are whats taught in the schools and the fields who are funded by certain stateside governments and see companies.
    As an ex-conventional crop and beef farmer from the midwest in the United States with a biology degree, a business degree, and years of knowledge and experience with both conventional farming and organic farming practices and regulations, I'm well educated in the entirety of stateside farming processes.

    Most only understand what they read or are taught, lets hear straight from the field.

    In reply to: “Actually, crittersmom, your vet is very very wrong, as there are less chemicals used on genetically modified crops. Try doing some real research on this topic and you will find that organic agricultural practices use more lethal chemicals at times. Genetically engineered ingredients have been PROVEN safe, whereas conventional and organic agricultural practices have been allowed to continue without any scrutiny on their choices at all”

    GMO seeds that are sent to the farmer are pre-coated with pesticides and herbicides, most times it’s Round Up, which is understandable because the seed company owns the herbicide company. Before the seed gets into the soil, the soil is sprayed with round up to get rid of existing weeds. The seeds are then put in the ground using most times what is called a ‘no till’ technique. This saves the farmer time because he doesn’t have to prepare the soil for the crop. The GMO seed can overcome the challenges and produces a strong and resilient crop. So while the crop might not get another spraying once it’s planted unless it’s not doing so well, it has round up in the soil already. And guess how long Round Up STAYS IN THE SOIL and ruins future crops? Be careful when you research the answer, because there’s a lot of misinformation out there to mislead you, as it has even certain scientists. The last time I converted a crop to organic, I had to wait SEVEN years to let the soil be ‘free of pre-existing toxins’ and then had to use natural fertilizers to put nutrients back into it because it was like a barren wasteland. Oh and by the way, conventional crops have been linked to cancer. Good luck googling that one, they like to cover all tracks. This information comes straight from the doctors and cancer specialists that had a hand in trying to save my sister as she was passing away from cancer.
    Sounds great, right? Well, the idea of GMO crops are an incredibly bright idea. There is little wrong (on a health intake side) with a GMO seed. What’s wrong is the outcome. Plants are mostly water, like us. The same principle applies to humans, plants, and animals – what goes in is what comes out. When a plant grows and produces fruit, it’s a combination of what the plant took in. If the soil was rich, the fruit is rich in the same minerals that are in the soil. If the soil has toxic chemicals in it, the fruit does too. This is the harmful part and what we need to focus on.
    FDA approved doesn’t mean it’s healthy. It means the food item has ‘below allowable percentages of’ whatever is the chemical at hand. And yes, round up is on that list. The same goes for our drinking water. It contains Flouride. Great for our teeth, not so great to drink constantly. Flouride above certain concentrations in toxic. Same for Chlorine, which our water has more allowable parts of chlorine that a public pool. (not a slam, it’s a fact, look it up on your local governments website.)
    On to the Organic part of this last statement. This is the reason I asked what country Westcoastsyrinx is practicing biology in. The USDA monitors organic food and crops to a harsher degree and standard than convention cropping. My source: ME! The farmer! Whydo they do this? Political, of course! Money money money. It’s what drives our “free” country’s politics.
    It is ILLEGAL to use synthetic pesticides and herbicides on organic crops. Most organic farmers that you will meet (experience speaking) do it because they believe in better crops. They are not in it for the money, I can tell you first hand the reason organic food is so expensive is because of all the obstacles that have to be overcome just to sell it. Our government is NOT about supporting organic, and organic farmers can tell you first hand how hard it is to farm it! It’s definitely about the heart and not the money with organics.


    In reply to: Have you ever even talked to a commercial farmer? What you are saying is the opposite of actual farming practices. Very little RoundUp is needed on genetically altered crops, and much more control can be used around WHEN the spray is used, so it never has contact with the actual produce. And what, exactly, is wrong with RoundUp? It is less toxic than most of the everyday products you are happy to ingest.
    My reply: Ummm, yeah, I’m a farmer. And what you’ve said here is not true at all. Not for the US anyway. And which product of round up are you speaking? There are several. Again, this is government slight of hand. “very little round up when the crop is sprayed” How about before the seed even gets into the ground? How about the round up coating on the seed?
    We can argue all day long, so here’s the proof in the pudding – look at USDA and FDA testing sheets. Not the checklist, the actual “amounts found” list. And remember, a little adds up to a lot when you eat it everyday for your entire life!
    “less toxic than everyday products” unfortunately that statement has some truth to it. Most preservatives and sugars cause the severe obesity we see here in the states. Conventional farming just causes the rampant spreading cancer.


    In reply to your reply to: Also, consuming meat from animals fed gmo crops is just as dangerous as eating the crops, and most animals slaughtered for meat are fed the cheaper gmo crops. GMO's are just bad all around!"
    of: Again, please provide peer reviewed, reproducable sources for your information that hasn't come from some snake oil web page?

    Really? C’mon, I thought you were a scientist. What school did you get your degree(s) from? What goes in is what comes out. The USDA (who doesn’t like to let go of this information) has the records of their regulations again of “allowable percentages of concentrations” of toxic materials allowed before it’s shipped off to us to ingest it. Where’s the proof? Again, lets go to the very beginning. Conventional cattle are fattened on Corn Gluten. Cheap corn and grains, and cheap corn and grains that show amounts of toxic herbicides in the fruit.
    If I eat an apple poisoned with arsenic, I’ll die. And the coroner can tell I was poisoned with arsenic because my muscles (my meat) will show traces of arsenic. The same applies to what cattle eat before we eat them. ANY livestock is this way. That’s why “free range” and “grass fed” is so popular. NO crops with residual toxic chemicals are present within the animal. And don’t be fooled by “vegetarian feed” and other gimmicks. Vegetarian feed hens are fed, yes, only produce. But it’s conventionally farmed produce.

    This isn’t even taking into consideration what GMO crops are now causing to happen in our ecosystem. There are now pesticide resilient bugs and herbicide resilient weeds that have naturally adapted to overcome the conventional farming practices. It’s unfortunate so many people have wool on their eyes, and our government is for the money instead of the health. So for me and my family and my pets, we are going to do what we know is right – back to the basics and how the earth was created to operate. Naturally. The reason for conventional farming is money. More money and faster money. What is your health worth?

  • 07/17/2015 06:05pm

    Well, iww5000m, I don't really care what someone like you who has clearly not done any biology accreditation for a LOOOONG time thinks, but there are some on here who might want to know actual facts, rather than bunk from someone who thinks they have a google degree.

    Seed coatings are used to include fungicides and nutrients, in order to support plant germination. When Roundup is sprayed on those plants, the Roundup would also kill those plants if it could get into the plant. The plant has been modified by a couple of genes within its structure to RESIST Roundup's ability to kill it, as it does the weeds around the crop the farmer wants to grow. This means the farmer doesn't have to till the land to get rid of the weeds, the plants can be sprayed before the produce emerges so there is no chance of roundup being on what you eat, and because the plant doesn't let the Roundup IN to its system to kill it, your pet IS NOT ingesting Roundup.

    I response to your statement, "And guess how long Round Up STAYS IN THE SOIL and ruins future crops?" If that were the case, why would ANY farmer choose to use the seed or Roundup? You are suggesting that farmers can only farm on the land for the one year, and then the ground is useless for future years. How could they keep creating income to feed their families and employees if you are right? I think you had better update your information, or stop writing such silly bunk.

    I am getting a little confused here: "Oh and by the way, conventional crops have been linked to cancer." First, are you talking about conventional methods of agriculture or genetically modified methods? If you are talking about genetically modified where the Roundup is in use because the product has been MODIFIED to reject glyphosate, then I wonder why a large company like Proctor & Gamble has purchased a patent to the cancer healing/prevention qualities of this chemical? http://www.google.com/patents/US5656615 Clearly, large successful companies in North America don't agree with your estimation of glyphosate's capabilities.

    "Good luck googling that one, they like to cover all tracks." Actually what happened was that ONE scientist, Seralini, used rats that were already genetically geared to developing cancer within a couple of years, and then reported that his rats, naturally, did develop cancer. His research has been thoroughly debunked, (look up Seralini and debunked), and now he has created his own Journal where he can republish his garbage and get away with it. Again, as above, if his studies were accurate, I am sure that Proctor & Gamble would have resisted taking out the patent.

    "If the soil has toxic chemicals in it, the fruit does too. This is the harmful part and what we need to focus on" Actually, plants, because they can't run away from preditors, ALL have to have toxic chemicals in them so that they can survive. It is these toxic chemicals that are often used by "organic" agricultural practices because they are deemed "natural" but that hasn't made them any less toxic. Pyrethrin is one of those.

    "And yes, round up is on that list. The same goes for our drinking water. It contains Flouride." Roundup is made up of a surfactant as well as the glyphosate. It is the surfactant that gets through the membranes of non GMO plants and kills them. It is like dish soap cleaning the dishes in your kitchen sink. The glyphosate is one of the safest chemicals we can possibly use on our agricultural produce, as can be shown by the LD50 number that has it half as toxic as vinegar. You are better off consuming glyphosate than equivalent amount of baking soda, salt, chocolate, and a miriad number of other items you consume daily. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BxXxn0qh5nntRzE3WGd4cVNwR2s/edit?usp=sharing&pli=1 A lot of the time "organic" practices recommend the use of vinegar: http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2014/06/salt-vinegar-and-glyphosate/

    As for the water part, if your water contains fluoride, you must be in a suburban setting as fluoride is only added to sources of water used by municipalities. http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/fluoride.cfm I have trouble equating that with the idea that you presently work on farmland?

    "It is ILLEGAL to use synthetic pesticides and herbicides on organic crops. Most organic farmers that you will meet (experience speaking) do it because they believe in better crops." NO, it isn't illegal. You just can't get your crops certified organic if you use synthetic chemicals. Quite frankly, I prefer seeing the synthetics entering our food production. I never did like eating cheese with the thought in the back of my mind that a young calf had to be slaughtered to harvest the rennet so that someone could make that cheese, and after treating diabetic cats with the new insulin, I am thrilled to see how much better these work than the former ones taken again from farm animals that would need to be dead for harvest to happen.

    As far as your bad mouthing comments about science, they now have the tools to discover that not only are we improving on our food production, but nature has been doing so for centuries. So far they are discovering facts such as your sweet potato being modified by bacteria, (genetic modification), that has been traced back to 8000 years ago. http://www.pnas.org/content/112/18/5844 So what is eventually going to be called "synthetic" and what may be left to be called "natural" in our future is anyone's guess, unless you have enough scientific knowledge to do the research.

    More food for thought, here. Every time you, or your cat or dog, has a cell that dies and needs to be replaced, that cell needs new genetic material that may or may not be the same as what it replaced. AND every single strand of DNA is held together by strings of alternating sugar and phosphorus molecules, so those who are busy saying our pets don't need any carbs, they clearly don't know much about modern day microbiology.

  • GMO free foods
    04/29/2015 05:56pm

    It could be implied that since some GMO foods are designed to accept larger amounts of pesticides, there is a good chance that non GMO foods have less of these toxic substances. Remember your pet is eating their food every day, and the toxins will accumulate in their small body that much faster. There are GMO free foods available like Acana/Orijen and Organic foods which are non GMO also.

  • 07/17/2015 06:56pm

    Genetically modified foods are designed to "resist" not "accept" pesticides and you are wrong if you think more are used. Farmers don't need to use as much, and they therefore are happy to use these types of farming to increase their profit margin.

    As for conventional and organic agricultural methods, I prefer the genetically engineered produce that has been through testing that isn't done on other agricultural procedures. Also, I have to be very careful when organic farmers use calcium chloride on their produce to prevent soft fruits and vegetables from splitting as I have an intolerance for chlorine and this compound is one that makes me violently ill right after eating the product. As the calcium chloride permeates the skin, it isn't possible to "wash" the produce to get rid of it. Also, sulphur based fungicides are used to preserve the conventional and organic produce in packing/warehouses and I develop canker sores if I have much of that in my system, so I would worry more about that sort of thing with my pets. While I haven't paid attention to the fear mongering around genetically engineered ingredients, there aren't many being grown that go into our pets' foods so far. I am afraid I worry way more if a food package says "organic." The impression that "organic" means better is false, created by the Organic Consumers Association that is a much larger conglomerate than Monsanto or any other single company. I refuse to purchase any food with "organic" on the label and just laugh at those that say, "nonGMO" because there isn't anything "GMO" in the food anyway.

  • 07/21/2015 12:43pm

    You response would carry validity if you've ever spent time on a farm, please don't spread misinformation about farming, it's clear you've never spent time on one.
    I'm curious as to why you avoided the pertinent information in your last reply -
    -what country did you receive your degree in and what country do you practice in?

    -it all comes down to raw data. I'm sure you can agree with that. To say that the FDA or USDA has PROVEN that GMO crops are safe as well as safer than Organic is a valid Hypothesis...but the end DATA shows that to be false. Just because the FDA says it's safe, it simply means its safe ACCORDING TO THEIR STANDARDS, which are Toxic standards, slowly killing you and your pets and infecting you with cancer causing agents. And it's not the rat studies to pay attention to. It's the dog and human studies that prove this to be true.
    However, our lovely government understands that our food supply is the largest monopoly in the USA, and bends the standards to accommodate the money it produces.
    Unfortunately to really see and understand this, it takes looking at the root cause, which is not Organic vs RoundUP Ready GMO, it's looking at the politics behind it. Unfortunate but true.

Is Your Pet Food Safe?

Everyone wants the best food for their pet, but few know what it takes to make quality food. Take our quiz to test your knowledge on pet food safety measures.

Share

  • Question 1 of 5

  • 1. All pet food manufacturers produce pet food at their own facilities.

    • True

    • False

    Nutrition Questions
    Answered By

    Q. My pet is overweight, what should I look for in a food?

    A. There are many therapeutic food options available. These foods have been formulated...

    Read More
    Q. How does Hill's Metabolic Advance weight solution food work?

    A. Hill's Pet Nutrition uses the most advanced technologies to understand how nutrients...

    Read More
    Q. My cat will not eat the renal food my veterinarian recommended, can I feed a grocery store food?

    A. Your veterinarian recommended a therapeutic kidney diet because it has ingredients...

    Read More
    View All the Questions