Chipotle admits to using GMOs

[Toliver]

On their web site (but not in their stores) Chipotle has listed the GMO ingredients they use in their food.

"Chipotle Starts Labeling GMO Ingredients On Website Menu"

The GMO-containing ingredients include all tortillas and rice, plus all of the varieties of meat, save pork carnitas. That means that the only surefire way to avoid GMOs at Chipotle would be to get a salad with lettuce, beans and, if you're a diehard carnivore, pork.

Half of the ingredients they use are GMO's.

For a company that has crowed about their conscientious ingredient sourcing, this revelation has come as quite a surprise.

Will it impact your choice of whether or not to patronize Chipotle?

[rotuts]

well ....

maybe GMO is bad, .....

but let us not be soooooooo stupid.

its right here now. good or bad.

if you have any understand of things like genetics, or more important about cross pollination,

most of us have been eating this for some time.

Edited June 21, 2013 by rotuts (log)

[Porthos]

Since I am not an adherent to organic methods of growing foods nor do I avoid GMOs for me this announcement amounts to finding out that they are changing the hours that they are open. If you have issues their use of GMOs by all means vote with your dollars and then please allow those such as me who want Chipotles products as is to continue to be able to buy them as is.

[Toliver]

One of the reasons why I thought this was worth mentioning is how it harkens back to the McDonald's french fries fried in beef tallow issue in the past (originally frying in beef tallow and then later adding beef flavoring to the vegetable oil). Vegetarian and customers of the Hindu faith were outraged that they weren't made aware of the beef tallow and, later, the beef flavoring.

So now with Chipotle, consumers who choose not to consume GMO products may have assumed that given Chipotle's focus on "Food with integrity" this would have meant not worrying about GMO's in Chipotle's food ingredients. It's a logical assumption, isn't it?

Apparently, Chipotle talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk to back up the "integrity" part of their credo.

[Emily Claire]

As a health conscious and flavor seeking foodie, I was extremely excited to see a large corporation actually take a stand in the battle over GMO labeling. Yes they use GMOs, more then I expected based on their previous marketing, and Yes they now label them online. This is a huge step in terms of being transparent and giving consumers their right to know. While it maybe tempting to point fingers at Chipotle, maybe even calling them hypocritical since they do use GMOs rather prevalently, this is a rather odd argument. Personally, I do feel that GMOs are not the solution and potentially damaging to our health. On the other hand, these are supposed to be "safe" so why would labeling a supposed "safe" ingredient cause Chipotle to lack integrity? Also, as they are being transparent, isn't labeling their ingredients more ethical then continually serving GMOs to the masses, completely unbenounced to them? During a time where more and more people want the right to know, and states are beginning to pass labeling laws, I find labeling to be a natural "organic" growth within our food system and food education. I avoid GMOs as much as possible, so I do not eat at fast food restaurants very often (like never if I can help it). I think Chipotle taking a stand actually encourages me to support them more, although this would be hard since they do use soy oil in much of their cooking. I hope they can continue to phase out the GMO oil and other ingredients as they have begun to do so in some regions and restaurants. Being the first chain of its kind to label GMOs, they are in my mind, demonstrating what they have preached this whole time. "food with integrity".

[Baselerd]

I understand that a lot of people dislike GM foods, since it's perceived as "unnatural" - but it's the way of the future.

How are we going to support an exploding world population without making our crops have higher yield, increased tolerance to weather, improved nutrition, improved shelf life, etc? There's already worldwide food shortages...

[rotuts]

there is what you say, and that's real.

there is again a certain sanctimonious-ness

from some who have the means to chose what ever they might want. this is not that.

the issues to me on the Big Farma and those they supply is disclosure.

they chose not to tell you the truth about what they sell. as does say WFs

[Paul Kierstead]

So now with Chipotle, consumers who choose not to consume GMO products may have assumed that given Chipotle's focus on "Food with integrity" this would have meant not worrying about GMO's in Chipotle's food ingredients. It's a logical assumption, isn't it?

No, it isn't a logical assumption at all, unless you start with the assumption that GMO lacks integrity. By your logic, a vegetarian would assume they have no meat or meat products in their food.

This thread, with its pejorative "admits" is pretty much the exact reason companies don't want transparency.

If you refuse to eat anywhere that does not disclose its sources, and then refuse to eat at Chipotle's because it is GMO, that's ok. If you eat elsewhere and punish Chipotle because they disclose, then what you are telling us is that you would prefer not to know.

[annabelle]

rotuts, I think you mean Big Agra.

Big Pharma is the e-vil drug companies, dontcha know?

[rotuts]

Farma vs Pharma

Agra is AgraCon

Edited July 2, 2013 by rotuts (log)

[annabelle]

I knew what you meant, I was just ribbing you.

[jmolinari]

So now with Chipotle, consumers who choose not to consume GMO products may have assumed that given Chipotle's focus on "Food with integrity" this would have meant not worrying about GMO's in Chipotle's food ingredients. It's a logical assumption, isn't it?

No, it isn't a logical assumption at all, unless you start with the assumption that GMO lacks integrity. By your logic, a vegetarian would assume they have no meat or meat products in their food.

This thread, with its pejorative "admits" is pretty much the exact reason companies don't want transparency.

If you refuse to eat anywhere that does not disclose its sources, and then refuse to eat at Chipotle's because it is GMO, that's ok. If you eat elsewhere and punish Chipotle because they disclose, then what you are telling us is that you would prefer not to know.

thank you for putting this eloquently. I couldn't formulate my thoughts, but i think you said it clearly.

[rancho_gordo]

I'm sure they are publishing this to see if there is much outcry. Please politely complain if you go to one. And only order the carnitas!

We're so neck deep in all of this, I think it would be hard not to have GMOs to some degree.
I didn't know about rice and that makes my heart sink. But it's hard to find non-GMO wheat so I figured the tortillas would be tainted. They seem to just use corn for their crispy tacos and I assumed these were GMO. If you want a soft taco, it seems like they make it with a flour tortilla. Odd. But I think it's easier to make good flour tortillas anywhere whereas corn takes some skill.

So this must mean the soy is GMO. What about the chicken and steak? Yuck.

My concern with GMOs is that we really don't now what is going to happen if they cross and our future is at stake. I've seen corn cross and it's scary and now we're reading that the yields aren't so great as touted and the Round Up Ready corn is finding enemies that are resistant. I think we really should have waited or banned them outright. Maybe Monsanto shouldn't be considered a citizen just yet.

But really, the whole point of Chipotle was supposed to be their superior ingredients. It's certainly not the way they fold a burrito. But with this stuff, your local taco truck has a level playing field, and if they make their tortillas from nixtamal, they're way ahead of the game.

[Ashen]

So now with Chipotle, consumers who choose not to consume GMO products may have assumed that given Chipotle's focus on "Food with integrity" this would have meant not worrying about GMO's in Chipotle's food ingredients. It's a logical assumption, isn't it?

I don't see that as a logical assumption. The fact that they are taking the trouble to adress and label the GMO's in their ingredients voluntarily is actually evidence of integrity . They may lose business by doing this but are willing to disclose so that those who wish to avoid GMO's can.

[annabelle]

"Food with integrity"? Is that an implication that food is moral and immoral according to how it is grown/processed?

[rancho_gordo]

"Food with integrity"? Is that an implication that food is moral and immoral according to how it is grown/processed?

...and marketed.

Is there a problem with using integrity in reference to food?

[sigma]

"Food with integrity"? Is that an implication that food is moral and immoral according to how it is grown/processed?

...and marketed.

Is there a problem with using integrity in reference to food?

The personification of food is meaningless marketing drivel, but I don't have a particular problem with it.

[annabelle]

It depends on how one is interpreting integrity. Ascribing moral values to food is a bit silly.

Technically, food crops are all GMOs since they have been selectively bred for size, texture, flavor and yield. Ears of corn were originally very tiny and held few kernels. Now we have many varieties that are used for human food as well as animal feed. The science of gene modification has allowed food crops in poor countries to feed their burgeoning populations and, through the addition of vitamin A, as in Golden Rice, to prevent blindness.

Restricting peoples' access to GMO crops through a sense of purity in food consumption is very selfish.

[rancho_gordo]

I think you're confusing hybrids with GMOs. No one is arguing against the use of hybrids.

[annabelle]

I read a lot of complaining about GMOs here.

If one is crossing different stains of grain to produce a hybrid, my point is that it is a primitive form of genetic modification.

[rancho_gordo]

Sorry. Your science is wrong.
Again, no is complaining about hybrids.

But the whole point of sending sterile corn to starving countries so they have to buy it from us in the future is morally dubious to a lot of people. WHy not send them "real" corn so they can seed save and be self-sufficient?

[annabelle]

Okay. I was under the impression that we exported rice to these countries as a food and as a grass-seed to be planted.

[rancho_gordo]

Rice, I don't know about. But I do remember the corn thing with Africa and I understand it's a very complicated issue, but if it's real humanitarian aid, why force them to make a decision like starve or take our non-sustainable corn? That's my point.

i would love it if it turned out GMOs were great and those of us who prefer (and are in a position to indulge) heirlooms can all live happily side by side. But these new GMOs have so many unknowns, why risk it, especially when the yields aren't come in much higher, if at all. It's especially sad to see the influence of one mega-corp in particular.

[sigma]

There have been a lot of untenable farm policies in the last 75 years in this country. Perhaps the worst was all of the dumping of excess crops on developing nations in order to keep prices here up as "aid" to farmers which basically served to drive the local farming structures bankrupt as they couldn't compete with free or ultra low prices, and then when yields were lower in the US, and thus prices already high, there was nobody set up to produce food overseas.

Why do I mention this? Because that food was not ethical or unethical food, it was food. Hell, if you asked a lot of people at the time, it was ultra-ethical to "help the farmer" which is not at all removed from many of our other feel good policies still in place. Anyway, the ethics of the farmer, seedmaker, congressman or bureaucrat are not transferred to the food, they are human qualities. Likewise, food cannot transfer good ethics to the denizens of Whole Foods or insert favorite locavore hipster food outlet despite what the label conscious consumers might think or hope.

By the way, your beans are great. I don't have a comment on whether they are ethical, though I understand your practices are. I do think they are absolutely delicious.

[annabelle]

If the corn was sent to Africa, then yes, a very complicated issue especially when dealing with the local middle-men who may very well resell it elsewhere or sell it and then let it sit there and spoil rather than truck it out. Humanitarian aid comes with a cost to the grower and it may be that the agreement was to give/sell the corn pending agreement to later arrangements for trade. Africa is difficult to deal with and not very transparent in its dealings.

The reason I am asking about GMOs and their ill effects or not is that there seems to be no information that isn't hysterical in the NO WAY! direction or BFD in the industry direction. I'd like to learn something that is honest in a cost/benefit analysis. There are unknowns with all new technology, from vaccines to surgical techniques. It doesn't make them bad or taboo until all the wrinkles are ironed out. If people can be fed more cheaply through greater crop yield using GMO technology and persons like yourself can continue to cultivate heirlooms and Farmer Bob can continue to grow his soybean, corn or wheat, then what's the harm in trying? We've been using GMO seeds for a decade. It's time for a longitudinal study.