Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?

Written by Dr. Steve Chaney on . Posted in Food and Health, Issues

The Unintended Consequences of the Proposed Non-GMO Labeling Laws

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

CerealPost Foods recently announced that their Grape Nuts cereal will be completely non-GMO. General Foods followed suit by announcing that their Original Cheerios will also be non-GMO. That’s good news, right?

Maybe, but it turns out that the new non-GMO Grape Nuts will no longer contain vitamins A, D, B12 or riboflavin, and the amount of riboflavin in a serving of Cheerios decreased from 25% of the daily recommended value (DV) to 2% of the DV.

The cereal manufacturers claim that their new cereals are more wholesome, but one nutrition expert said “The new products are arguably less healthy given their lower vitamin content.”

I’ve never been one to claim that throwing a few vitamins into a serving of cereal turns it into a nutrition powerhouse, but the decreased vitamin content of the new non-GMO cereals does raise a few questions.

  • Why were the vitamins removed?
  • Did it have anything to do with the cereals being non-GMO?
  • Does this mean that the non-GMO processed foods of the future will be less nutritious than the foods they replace?

The cereal manufacturers were mum when asked these questions, so we will need to rely on some scientific sleuthing and a bit of intuition to get the answers.

The Flaw in The Proposed Non-GMO Labeling Laws

I first discussed this topic a few months ago in a “Health Tips From The Professor” article titled “When is GMO Non-GMO?” I received a lot of irate comments from people who take every word on the non-GMO websites and videos as the gospel truth. (The professor has never been one to shy away from controversy when he sees claims that aren’t based on good science.)

However, I think my article was misunderstood by some of my readers, so let me review my conclusions briefly:

  • There are definitely environmental concerns around the widespread use of GM crops – especially those that allow heavy pesticide and herbicide usage.
  • There are potential health concerns related to the consumption of unprocessed GM foods and proteins derived from GM foods – although those heath concerns have been blown way out of proportion in the media.

If the proposed Non-GMO labeling laws stopped there, they would be scientifically justified. But they go one step further by requiring that processed foods labeled as non-GMO cannot contain any ingredient obtained from a GM source. There is no scientific justification for this.

  • Nutrients (sugars, oils & vitamins) derived from GM sources are chemically and biologically indistinguishable from those same nutrients derived from non-GMO sources.

The intentions of the proposed non-GMO labeling laws are good, but whenever you go beyond what good science supports there are often unintended consequences – such as the vitamin-depleted non-GMO cereals that the food manufacturers have just announced.

Will Non-GMO Foods Be Less Nutritious?

Non-GMOTo understand the answer to that question, let’s look at what probably happened to the vitamins in the non-GMO cereals.

In today’s world many vitamins are purified from genetically modified microorganisms – bacteria & yeast that have been modified to overproduce certain vitamins. In evaluating the significance of that statement, here are a few facts to consider:

1)     We have gotten vitamins from these sources for many years.

    • B vitamins have been obtained from yeast for at least a hundred years.
    • A significant portion of the vitamins we absorb on a daily basis are made by bacteria in our gut.

2)     The only difference today is that these microorganisms have been genetically modified to overproduce the vitamins.

3)     These are naturally sourced vitamins.

  • The microorganisms are the same ones that have provided these vitamins for generations.
  • The enzymes used by the microorganisms to make the vitamins are the same.

4)     There is no downside to the use of GM organisms as a source of natural vitamins.

    • There is no environmental risk from the use of these GM microorganisms. They don’t contain any dangerous genes that could wreak havoc if they escaped from the food processing plants.
    • Because the purified vitamins are indistinguishable from those obtained from non-GMO sources, there are also no health risks.

5)     The advantage of using these GM organisms is clear. It substantially lowers the cost of vitamins and allows them to be used in the mass market – for example, in popular breakfast cereals.

6)     Most food manufacturers can’t simply use non-GMO sourced vitamins and raise their prices.

    • A recent poll showed that 53% of Americans prefer non-GMO foods, but only 11% are willing to pay more for those foods

What Does the Future Hold?

Even though they are scientifically flawed, the proposed non-GMO labeling laws will probably become the law in several states in the near future. (Good science has never played much of a role in political decisions.)

Currently, there simply aren’t enough non-GMO vitamins available to supply the mass market – even if price were no concern. So, in the short term, many non-GMO processed foods are likely to be less nutritious than the foods they will replace – as we just saw with Grape Nuts and Cheerios.

However, most people feel that American ingenuity and the law of supply and demand will eventually result in a bigger supply of reasonable priced non-GMO vitamins. When that happens non-GMO processed foods will be just as nutritious as the older GM versions.

However, at this point nobody knows how long that will take.

The Bottom Line:

1)     There is a scientific basis for environmental and potential health concerns regarding genetically modified whole foods and the protein extracted from these foods.

2)     However, proposed non-GMO labeling laws would require that a processed food be labeled as genetically modified if it contains any nutrient purified from a genetically modified organism.

3)     There is no scientific justification for this requirement. Purified vitamins from GM and non-GM microorganisms are chemically and biologically indistinguishable. Furthermore, the GM microorganisms used to produce the vitamins pose no environmental or health risks.

4)     Non-GMO vitamins (vitamins prepared from non-GMO microorganisms) are currently in short supply and are very expensive compared to vitamins prepared from GM microorganisms.

5)     Consequently, the unintended consequence of these proposed non-GMO labeling laws will likely be that many of the new non-GMO processed foods will contain fewer vitamins and, therefore, will be less nutritious than the foods they replace – at least in the short term. The new non-GMO Grape Nuts and Cheerios may be just the tip of the iceberg.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • susan

    |

    I am shocked at you view point with the safety of GM foods. How can you believe that the DNA of these plants are not altered. I think Dr. Shaklee would be very upset to hear you make these kinds of statements. There are many things that look safe or look the same as other nutrients but we know that they are NOT. How can you believe that these GM could possible be okay to use as a vitamin source and worse yet how can you possible use this to educate our Shaklee family.
    I am shocked.
    Susan Risbridger.

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Susan,
      Don’t misunderstand me. I am no fan of GM foods. If you read my previous post “When is GMO Not GMO?” I clearly stated that the DNA was modified in GM foods, and that was a potential health risk. I also stated that proteins made from GM foods can contain alterations that could lead to food allergies. Those are both potential health concerns. I also stated that any GM food that encouraged heavy pesticide or herbicide use was an environmental concern.
      However, I am an educator. I simply pointed out that the proposed GMO labeling requirements go beyond what science can support. Sugars, oils and vitamins are chemically and biologically identical whether they come from GMO or Non-GMO sources – so they have no potential health concerns. If the sugars and oils come from GM plants that encourage pesticide & herbicide use, there are still potential environmental concerns. However, vitamins made from GM microorganisms have neither health or environmental concerns.
      The proposed GMO labeling regulations are well intentioned, but whenever you go beyond what science supports there are unintended consequences.

      Reply

  • Kim Edmondson

    |

    This article was very helpful. I recently saw a TED’s talk that was centered around the Paleo diet, but discussed aspects of GM and how it has influenced and even helped many of the foods we consume in our current diets. I agree with you that media and advertising have caused more confusion on these topics than helping to make the topic clear. Overall, I lean toward the practice of eating a variety of fresh foods and lean meats when they are in season and avoiding processed foods. It is disheartening to realize that the food industry is so consumed with making money, that good nutrition is all too often sacrificed on the altar of pesticides and preservatives and the cycle of good eating for good health is lost in the mix of producing more for less. I appreciate you clarifying more of the information surrounding GM and it’s positive/ negative effects. Thank you.

    Reply

  • Janet Sickmeier

    |

    Does this mean that some of Shaklee’s natural vitamins have GM nutrients in them? Or are you saying that most of the vitamins put into food, which I assumed were chemical vitamins like at One a Day’s, were what they used to ‘beef-up” the cereals, etc. with vitamins I further understood that those vitamins were inferior to what Shaklee makes – This article makes me wonder where Shaklee’s ‘natural’ vitamins come from. I would appreciate some clarification on this point.
    Thanks!

    Reply

    • Dr. Steve Chaney

      |

      Dear Janet,

      I do not have direct knowledge as to whether Shaklee or any other company uses GM nutrients in their vitamins.
      I am an educator, and as an educator I try to get people to think outside of their box. In this article, and my previous “When is GMO not GMO” I’m trying to get people to think more carefully about what GMO means. More importantly I’m trying to get people to ask themselves “When is the distinction between GMO and non-GMO important, and when is it irrelevant?”

      Reply

Leave a comment

Recent Videos From Dr. Steve Chaney

READ THE ARTICLE
READ THE ARTICLE

Latest Article

High Protein Diets and Weight Loss

Posted October 16, 2018 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Do High Protein Diets Reduce Fat And Preserve Muscle?

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Healthy Diet food group, proteins, include meat (chicken or turkAre high protein diets your secret to healthy weight loss? There are lots of diets out there – high fat, low fat, Paleolithic, blood type, exotic juices, magic pills and potions. But recently, high protein diets are getting a lot of press. The word is that they preserve muscle mass and preferentially decrease fat mass.

If high protein diets actually did that, it would be huge because:

  • It’s the fat – not the pounds – that causes most of the health problems.
  • Muscle burns more calories than fat, so preserving muscle mass helps keep your metabolic rate high without dangerous herbs or stimulants – and keeping your metabolic rate high helps prevent both the plateau and yo-yo (weight regain) characteristic of so many diets.
  • When you lose fat and retain muscle you are reshaping your body – and that’s why most people are dieting to begin with.

So let’s look more carefully at the recent study that has been generating all the headlines (Pasiakos et al, The FASEB Journal, 27: 3837-3847, 2013).

The Study Design:

This was a randomized control study with 39 young (21), healthy and fit men and women who were only borderline overweight (BMI = 25). These volunteers were put on a 21 day weight loss program in which calories were reduced by 30% and exercise was increased by 10%. They were divided into 3 groups:

  • One group was assigned a diet containing the RDA for protein (about 14% of calories in this study design).
  • The second group’s diet contained 2X the RDA for protein (28% of calories)
  • The third group’s diet contained 3X the RDA for protein (42% of calories)

In the RDA protein group carbohydrate was 56% of calories, and fat was 30% of calories. In the other two groups the carbohydrate and fat content of the diets was decreased proportionally.

Feet_On_ScaleWhat Did The Study Show?

  • Weight loss (7 pounds in 21 days) was the same on all 3 diets.
  • The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused almost 2X more fat loss (5 pounds versus 2.8 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.
  • The high protein (28% and 42%) diets caused 2X less muscle loss (2.1 pounds versus 4.2 pounds) than the diet supplying the RDA amount of protein.
  • In case you didn’t notice, there was no difference in overall results between the 28% (2X the RDA) and 42% (3X the RDA) diets.

Pros And Cons Of The Study:

  • The con is fairly obvious. The participants in this study were all young, healthy and were not seriously overweight. If this were the only study of this type one might seriously question whether the results were applicable to middle aged, overweight coach potatoes. However, there have been several other studies with older, more overweight volunteers that have come to the same conclusion – namely that high protein diets preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss.
  • The value of this study is that it defines for the first time the upper limit for how much protein is required to preserve muscle mass in a weight loss regimen. 28% of calories is sufficient, and there appear to be no benefit from increasing protein further. I would add the caveat that there are studies suggesting that protein requirements for preserving muscle mass may be greater in adults 50 and older.

The Bottom Line:

1)    Forget the high fat diets, low fat diets, pills and potions. High protein diets (~2X the RDA or 28% of calories) do appear to be the safest, most effective way to preserve muscle mass and enhance fat loss in a weight loss regimen.

2)     That’s not a lot of protein, by the way. The average American consumes almost 2X the RDA for protein on a daily basis. However, it is significantly more protein than the average American consumes when they are trying to lose weight. Salads and carrot sticks are great diet foods, but they don’t contain much protein.

3)     Higher protein intake does not appear to offer any additional benefit – at least in young adults.

4)     Not all high protein diets are created equal. What some people call high protein diets are laden with saturated fats or devoid of carbohydrate. The diet in this study, which is what I recommend, had 43% healthy carbohydrates and 30% healthy fats.

5)    These diets were designed to give 7 pounds of weight loss in 21 days – which is what the experts recommend. There are diets out there promising faster weight loss but they severely restrict calories and/or rely heavily on stimulants, they do not preserve muscle mass, and they often are not safe. In addition they are usually temporary.  I do not recommend them.

6)    This level of protein intake is safe for almost everyone. The major exception would be people with kidney disease, who should always check with their doctor before increasing protein intake. The only other caveat is that protein metabolism creates a lot of nitrogenous waste, so you should drink plenty of water to flush that waste out of your system. But, water is always a good idea.

7)     The high protein diets minimized, but did not completely prevent, muscle loss. Other studies suggest that adding the amino acid leucine to a high protein diet can give 100% retention of muscle mass in a weight loss regimen – but that’s another story for another day.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

UA-43257393-1