Is Chipotle promoting food woo?

[Red Baron Farms]

Yes, they are 'informing' their customers (which is what said), but it's clearly a marketing tool. There's no such thing as meat or dairy derived from GM animals because there are no approved GM animals. Yet chipotle is implying they go out of their way to purchase such GMO free ingredients. On the other hand, there is such a thing as cheese made with an enzyme produced by genetically modified bacteria. Chipotle uses this cheese but makes no mention of it in their "informational" statement.

Yes they do, that's twice you lied.

Is the cheese Chipotle serves made with GMO enzymes?
Most cheese makers in the U.S., including those who supply cheese to Chipotle, use what is called Fermentation-Produced Chymosin (FPC), which is a vegetarian rennet that is classified as non-GMO by the EU and all existing U.S. state GMO labeling laws. While this enzyme is non-GMO, it is produced by bacteria that have been genetically modified. During the production process, the enzyme used to make cheese is completely separated from these organisms and does not contain any GMO material. The bacteria are classified as “processing aids” because they are not used as ingredients to make cheese. For this reason, cheese made with FPC enzyme does not contain any GMO material. All of our cheese suppliers provide us with documentation of the non-GMO status of the enzyme used to make cheese for Chipotle.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Yes they do, that's twice you lied.

It wasn't in the "dairy" section that you quoted and that I was responding to, so I'm not sure how I've lied even once regarding any of this. Chipotle is clearly the one lying when they claim it's not a GMO enzyme (as I previously stated they were). By saying that because it is separated from the GM organisms it makes it non-GM, that would mean GM soybeanoil and GM sugar are also non GM because they are also separated from their respective organisms. Labeling laws have nothing to do with this, labeling laws only define what is labeled not what is GM. Labeling laws proposed in Hawaii have excluded GM papayas and labeling laws in the EU and Vermont exclude GM rennet, doesn't change what they are. On the other hand, the non-GMO project and organic certifications specifically exclude GM rennet as a component of anything that get's their stamp of approval. How you still think Chipotle is showing integrity on this matter is incredible.

 

[ectoplasm]

I wouldn't call it integrity that Chipotle is showing.
They are contributing to fear mongering, and then pandering to it, ignoring science in their justification, then obfuscating what they are actually doing, because if they did what they were claiming it would affect their bottom line.

Integrity?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

How you still think Chipotle is showing integrity on this matter is incredible.

And the fact that you criticize them for both, taking the extremist view, then attack them again when proven your attacks are lies and they haven't taken the extremist view, is even more incredible.

 

[Puppycow]

Bumping this thread because I saw something in the news that reminded me of it:

Chipotle shuts Seattle, Portland stores after E. coli outbreak

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc said on Sunday it had closed all its restaurants in two West Coast markets due to a reported outbreak of E. coli bacteria that is being investigated by the company and health authorities.

"After being notified by health department officials in the Seattle (Wash.) and Portland, Ore. areas that they were investigating approximately 20 cases of E. coli, including people who ate at six of our restaurants in those areas, we immediately closed all of our restaurants in the area out of an abundance of caution," Chipotle said in an emailed statement.

. . .

It is the third outbreak of food contamination at Chipotle restaurants since August. Those earlier cases involved salmonella and the highly infectious virus norovirus.

. . .

There is a growing trend among restaurants, as with Chipotle, to use more fresh, unprocessed food. While that may be good for nutrition, experts say it raises the risk of foodborne illness because cooking kills pathogens that cause illness.

While not directly related to the issue of GMO vs. non-GMO, there may possibly be a connection with organic food production methods.

Organic foods may be more prone to contamination, studies reveal

While organic foods are often praised for being cleaner, healthier and purer, the past couple of years have brought a spike in recalls on organics due to bacterial contaminations, Yahoo Health reports.

A new report by Stericyle reveals that 7 percent of all food recalls this year have been organic. That's compared to 1 percent of total food recalls in 2012 and 2013. Stericyle reviewed FDA and USDA data to identify the jump, Yahoo reports.

So why the drastic rise? Experts point to a multitude of potential culprits, but the most likely is that organic food is in higher demand than ever before. Thus, farms that were once small and controlled are now growing into so-called "super-farms" to meet consumer demand.

. . .

Additionally, several recent studies have pointed to the idea that organically grown foods are actually more sensitive to bacterial contamination. In one particular study this year, researchers found that organic vegetables sold at California farmers markets were two times as likely to be contaminated with salmonella than vegetables grown at conventional farms, Yahoo reports.

Here's that study:
Cross-sectional survey of indicator and pathogenic bacteria on vegetables sold from Asian vendors at farmers' markets in northern California.

I don't know why the study singled out Asian vendors, which seems weird, but I'm quoting it verbatim. From the abstract:

There was a twofold higher probability of Salmonella contamination in samples from growers or vendors who stated that they used organic farming practices compared with samples from those using conventional farming practices.

So, what to make of this all? Chipotle decided to get rid of all GMOs in its food, or at least as much as possible. In doing that they probably had to find new suppliers for at least some of their ingredients. And now there have been three outbreaks of contamination with pathogens since August, the latest one being E. Coli. GMO is a phantom menace: there is no evidence of health risk due to GMO foods per se. Pathogens OTOH are a real danger, and I would feel better if their food safety efforts were focused on things like that rather than the imaginary danger of GMOs.

 

[Puppycow]

Local and organic food has extra safety risks. Just ask Chipotle.

Chipotle likes to emphasize the quality of its food, a goal summed up in the company's slogan, "Food with integrity." So it might seem paradoxical that Chipotle, of all companies, has gotten hit by a string of food safety problems.

Yet it turns out that it's not so paradoxical. This paragraph from a regulatory disclosure Chipotle filed in February — before the current food safety crisis began this summer — explains why (emphasis added):

We have made a significant commitment to serving local or organic produce when seasonally available, and a small portion of our restaurants also serves produce purchased from farmers markets seasonally as well. These produce initiatives may make it more difficult to keep quality consistent, and present additional risk of food-borne illnesses given the greater number of suppliers involved in such a system and the difficulty of imposing our quality assurance programs on all such suppliers. Quality variations and food-borne illness concerns could adversely impact public perceptions of Food With Integrity or our brand generally.​

There's plenty to dislike about factory farms, but one big advantage of large-scale conventional agriculture is that it allows sophisticated quality control measures. By aggressively embracing local and organic food, Chipotle put itself — and its customers — at greater risk of doing business with suppliers with substandard safety and quality control procedures.

And as we've noted before, the benefits of organic food are scientifically dubious to start with.

 

[Trebuchet]

Another one in my region just got closed for food safety violations. Not e-coli, just failing three consecutive inspections.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/health/seattle-chipotle-closed-for-repeated-violations/

 

[Darwin123]

I've listed it like 3 times now. 1) That "harmful" GMO corn only fit for cattle was getting into the human food supply.
...

The real issue is that the GMO is suitable for direct human consumption while the previously used cattle feed is not. I thought the real issue was that cattle should not eat any food fit for human consumption. The big issue is that the farmers were using a human consumable to feed cattle. The GMO is an issue only when the GMO facilitates the replacement of grass by a food that can be directly eaten by a human being.

Cattle should be eating food fit only for cattle, such as grass. Grass can't be consumed by directly human beings, and grows largely without using up irreplaceable resources. So raising cattle on grass doesn't require as much human resources. Corn, on the other hand can be directly consumed by human beings. Humans have to exhaust a lot of resources

Part of this is thermodynamics. The more animal links between plants and human beings, the more resources wasted. Plants absorb a certain amount of free energy from the sun. This is true both for corn kernels and meadow grass. However, a human that eats a corn kernel uses a greater part of the free energy than when a humans eats a cow that eats the corn kernel. Calories from the sun are used up in keeping the cow alive.

The use of human food for raising cattle is environmentally bad. The GMO is bad ecologically only to the extent that it is good for human consumption.

Basically, this is the similar to the problem of ethanol for automobiles. Sure, the sugar from sugar cane and corn are replaceable resources in the sense that the sun and soil are replaceable. However, humans eat sugar from sugar cane and corn. There is only so much fertilizer and sun light one can get per years to raise the sugar cane and corn. So the ethanol fuel ends up being taken from humans.

Although GMOs can make ethanol fuel less expensive, the use of ethanol itself is not ecologically sound. The problem is not that the GMO is bad for direct consumption. The problem is that the use of ethanol fuel is ecologically bad.


What would be nice if one could use the cellulose in the crop to feed cattle or make ethanol fuel. Perhaps someone could develop a GMO crop that makes less cellulose and more sugar. Or best of all, a GMO bacterium that breaks down cellulose into ethanol. That would come with its own threats of course.

The other ecological issue is the use of insecticides on crops. GMOs are used to replace one insecticide by another. The farmer uses less of a highly toxic insecticide by replacing it with a lot of less toxic insecticide which the GMO is resistant to. A farmer that doesn't use the GMO can end up using a small amount of the highly toxic insecticide.

Taco Bell is not promising to avoid foods with a lot of insecticide. They aren't using 'organic' crops. They are not making a guarantee of avoiding insecticides, which can be measured using chemical techniques. Instead, they are promising to avoid the use of GMOs.

Does Taco Bell even have the means to make good their promise? How do they even know their product doesn't have a GMO? Could anyone sue them if there was a GMO in their food? Promises are rather cheap.

The suspicion that I have is that they are choosing to ban something that is not easy to monitor. The food that you eat at Taco Bells may have insecticides, antibiotics and hormones in it. Although it may cost, there are means to monitor these items. However, how other than the farmers word can a buyer know he is not using a GMO?

Taco Bell could do other things that would make their food safer. Taco Bell should avoid crops made with herbicides. The herbicides are dangerous to humans and wildlife. Taco Bell would be making a clearer statement if they said that their meat came from cattle which have not been treated with hormones or antibiotics.

The direct challenge to public health is the grease and sugar in food. The avoidance of GMO crops does not decrease the grease and sugar in food. They sell grease and sugar.

Hormones and antibiotics are known hazards in meat. Hormones have developmental effects on people. Antibiotics make cattle bacteria develop antibiotic resistance that can pass on to human pathogens. So why doesn't Taco Bell ban meat made with hormones and antibiotics?

I think this antiGMO campaign is smoke and mirrors. I notice that these other health issues have sort of disappeared from public view.

Okay, I will say it. The only long term solutions to most of these health concerns involve slowing down and reversing population growth. The antiGMO campaign is a red herring, raised with hormones and antibiotics.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The real issue is that the GMO is suitable for direct human consumption while the previously used cattle feed is not. I thought the real issue was that cattle should not eat any food fit for human consumption. The big issue is that the farmers were using a human consumable to feed cattle. The GMO is an issue only when the GMO facilitates the replacement of grass by a food that can be directly eaten by a human being.

Cattle should be eating food fit only for cattle, such as grass. Grass can't be consumed by directly human beings, and grows largely without using up irreplaceable resources. So raising cattle on grass doesn't require as much human resources. Corn, on the other hand can be directly consumed by human beings. Humans have to exhaust a lot of resources

Part of this is thermodynamics. The more animal links between plants and human beings, the more resources wasted. Plants absorb a certain amount of free energy from the sun. This is true both for corn kernels and meadow grass. However, a human that eats a corn kernel uses a greater part of the free energy than when a humans eats a cow that eats the corn kernel. Calories from the sun are used up in keeping the cow alive.

The use of human food for raising cattle is environmentally bad.

...-snipped several good points-...

I think this antiGMO campaign is smoke and mirrors. I notice that these other health issues have sort of disappeared from public view.

Well put! I would add that Genetic engineering is just a tool. Like any tool, it can be put to either good or bad uses. Use that tool for good use, as in ecosystem restoration, like the new American Chestnut strains resistant to blight,[1] and I see nothing but good outcomes.

Okay, I will say it. The only long term solutions to most of these health concerns involve slowing down and reversing population growth.

You did however lose me there. Overpopulation is a function not of population numbers alone, but rather the population compared to the carrying capacity of the land. This leaves two options, reduce population or improve the ecosystems that support all life on the planet, including ourselves. I always figured the "population control crowd" were sell outs and just too lazy to actually get to work improving the carrying capacity of the land. True population control can potentially work, but then you still have the problems of crap deteriorating planet ecosystems to contend with anyway. That seems to me to be the long slow path back to hunter gathering and living in the caves.

The antiGMO campaign is a red herring, raised with hormones and antibiotics.

Agreed again!

 

[ectoplasm]

As Chipotle continues to have problems with food poisoning, the lunatic fringe sees a biotech conspiracy.

After observing recent events involving Chipotle and e.coli, here's my analysis of the situation: Chipotle's e.coli outbreaks are not random chance. They are the result of the biotech industry unleashing bioterrorism attacks against the only fast food company that has publicly denounced GMOs. ...MikeAdamsNaturalNews

There is absolutely no question that the biotech industry will resort to ANY activity necessary to destroy food companies that oppose GMOs. And yes, this includes acts of bioterrorism against Chipotle -- something that's ridiculously easy for biotech industry operatives to carry out with simple, low-cost laboratory supplies sold online at places like Amazon.com. ...

Thats Mike Adams quoted in Reason.

The link between Chipotle's problems and biotech is simpler than that. Chipotle was so obsessed with "food with integrity" and eliminating GMOs, that they weren't concentrating enough on food safety.

 

[Darwin123]

As Chipotle continues to have problems with food poisoning, the lunatic fringe sees a biotech conspiracy.



Thats Mike Adams quoted in Reason.

The link between Chipotle's problems and biotech is simpler than that. Chipotle was so obsessed with "food with integrity" and eliminating GMOs, that they weren't concentrating enough on food safety.

If Chipotle can't figure out the biological protocols necessary to keep E. coli pathogens out of their food, then how can they hope to detect and remove GMOs from their food. Better yet...

Has Chipotle advertised what type of inspections they are going to use to detect genetic modification? Do they have any way at all to avoid buying GMOs?

It seems to me that if they did keep track of their own operation, then they could detect the 'bioterrorism' of the Big Companies. They would be able to determine the source of the food poisoning. If the food poisoning was spread on purpose, they could find the front line saboteurs. They would be accusing the big companies of sabotage.


I conjecture that there is no operational meaning to their GMO boycott. They will buy mass quantities of food at the cheapest cost. If the cheapest food is a GMO, they will buy it. They can not really avoid GMOs because they don't have total control over their own procedures.

If I am wrong, then I expect Chipotle to tell us something about their operation concerning GMOs. They must have some control over their own operation. I seriously doubt the managers of this multimillion dollar company have even met a farmer. So tell us what biological controls they have over their product?

 

[Puppycow]

Bumping an old thread based on the latest news. So Chipotle's problems with food safety it seems have had a lasting impact on their bottom line. When I started this thread, over a year and a half ago (April 28, 2015) Chipotle's share price was around $640/share. By early August of that year it had risen to $750, but at the latest quote it is under $400/share.
You can look at a chart of their share price here if you're curious.

Here is the latest investor news:

Chipotle Mexican estimates 4.8 percent drop in fourth-quarter comparable sales

Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc (CMG.N) said sales at established restaurants likely fell 4.8 percent in the fourth quarter and that costs came in higher than it had previously anticipated.

Chipotle's shares were down 3.2 percent at $381.99 in premarket trading.

The company said it incurred higher-than-expected expenses due to higher promotional spending and costs related to television advertising, as it fights to recover from a string of food safety lapses late last year.

It's down about 38% compared to when I started this thread and 47% from its all-time high later that year. Maybe it means that selling food woo doesn't really make good business sense in the long run?

 

[fuelair]

Pure marketing. They know there's no harm in jumping in that bandwagon because most people are scared of GMOs. This sets them up as the "healthy and natural," alternative in fast food. No different than other meaningless labels like "all-natural," "low-fat" and "organic."

And, don't forget, they had two (at least) situations of serving food that made lots of people ill and had to close down for a bit. This is likely an attempt to get back customers who remember that!!!! And think it will be an improvement!!! It's not..............

 

[fuelair]

And, yes I was ninjaed - quit reading other posts too soon,..................

 

[pgwenthold]

And, don't forget, they had two (at least) situations of serving food that made lots of people ill and had to close down for a bit. This is likely an attempt to get back customers who remember that!!!! And think it will be an improvement!!! It's not..............

Moreover, given time more people will come to realize that Chipotle isn't near as good as it is made out to be, and perhaps the drop in sales is just a result of the newness rubbing off?

 

[fuelair]

Chipotle never impressed me - In Orlando area, We have San Jose's (2 or 3 branches and fine food) and El Potro (2 branches and a tasty buffet which could be improved a little by higher temperature and today when I had lunch the waitress brought me out a nice size small bowl of their chipotle sauce which is great on most stuff (not ice cream, but...) Several others have nice food, but they do not do Huevos Rancheros correctly. Also. any Mexican restaurant that offers sopapillas that are flat and you pour honey on them does not know what a sopapilla is. Which is not really a surprise as sopapillas are New Mexican, puffy and based on scones and should be served hot and fresh. If anyone is interested in why, ask!!!!

 

[jakesteele]

To be fair, "heirloom" seeds are genetically modified.

They were just modified the old fashioned way, usually for some of the same reasons we genetically modify crops today; higher yields, disease resistance, shorter growing time, etc.

I thought heirloom seeds were the original type that grows naturally, without human intervention, manipulation or even any interaction in any given areas, similar to "species" plants. This is just my impression, but I thought hybrids and GM0s were very different.

https://bonnieplants.com/library/what-is-an-heirloom-what-is-a-hybrid/

Hybrid Plants
A hybrid vegetable is created when plant breeders intentionally cross-pollinate two different varieties of a plant, aiming to produce an offspring, or hybrid, that contains the best traits of each of the parents. Cross-pollination is a natural process that occurs within members of the same plant species.

GMO Plants
GMO plants, on the other hand, are the result of genetic engineering. (“GMO” stands for “genetically modified organism.”) This is a process during which the plant’s DNA is altered in a way that cannot occur naturally, and sometimes includes the insertion of genes from other species. All of our plants are grown from non-GMO seeds.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I thought heirloom seeds were the original type that grows naturally, without human intervention, manipulation or even any interaction in any given areas, similar to "species" plants. This is just my impression, but I thought hybrids and GM0s were very different.

No. Heirlooms are open pollinated cultivars for 25-50 years or more. These are very different than wild populations as they have been carefully selected by hand for desirable traits for hundreds and even thousands of years to become a "cultivar" to begin with.

For example heirloom maize (corn) is nothing like wild teosinte.
http://maize.uga.edu/index.php?loc=ancestors

Depending what is selected for by hand, OP cultivars can vary quite a lot as well. When you take two different cultivars and cross breed them you get a hybrid.

A GMO is yet another way to obtain desirable traits, this time rather than hybridization, by genetic engineering.

Modern GMO seeds generally have been manipulated by all 4 ways at some point in their ancestry. (natural selection in the wild, followed by hand selection to create domesticated cultivars, Hybridization both before and after genetic engineering manipulation.)