YouTube Removes Undercover Video Showing Whole Foods GMO Misinformation

Anthony Gucciardi
Natural Society / News Report
Published: Sunday 7 October 2012
“The video has since been removed due to apparently ‘violating the Terms of Service’, according to the genetic Youtube message that appears in place of the original video.”
Article image

Youtube has pulled an undercover ‘Organic Spies’ video questioning Whole Foods employees as to whether or not any of the products within Whole Foods contained GMO ingredients. Created to show how even the employees themselves are misinformed (or even dishonest) about the very real presence of Monsanto’s GMOs in a store like Whole Foods that is supposed to promote health and wellness, the Organic Spies video received over 100,000 views in a few short days.

The video has since been removed due to apparently ‘violating the Terms of Service’, according to the genetic Youtube message that appears in place of the original video. As Infowars.com’s Aaron Dykes explains, this could be due to a third party complaint (such as Whole Foods demanding it be taken down), but it is not known as YouTube no longer tells the user of the third party identity. In other words, videos like these can be taken down without a trace of who is responsible.

You can see a re-upload of the video below:

One thing is clear, however. Whole Foods definitely has its eye on the video, attempting to perform ‘damage’ control through PR statements. Whole Foods even responded to the video after it became viral on the internet, stating on their blog that they certainly do carry GMOs within their store and that their employees questioned in the video were misinformed:

“The YouTube video showing our store Team Members giving conflicting responses to a question about GMOs reminds us that while we try to keep all our 70,000 Team Members up-to-speed on the latest information, clearly we need to do more. Some products in our stores DO contain GMOs – just like any other food store in the country, due to the pervasiveness of GMOs…”

Whole Foods Should Abandon GMOs, Monsanto

Just to be clear, I do believe that Whole Foods offers consumers a pretty considerable selection of organic non-GMO options at their stores. Many items contain the Non-GMO Project verified sticker, and they are certainly multitudes more in touch with real food than the average grocer. That said, it is important that we always keep corporations in line when it comes to protecting the health of ourselves and our families.

Ever since the recent French GMO study found that Monsanto’s GMOs (and Roundup) were contributing to tumor growth and organ damage, the international alarm over GMOs has been louder than ever. This is the perfect time to spread the word over carriers like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s who still carry GMOs within their ‘natural health’ stores. After all, GMOs arenot natural by any stretch of the word.

The success of the Organic Spies video signifies a serious paradigm shift in the way the average individual looks at an average business. Whole Foods, like virtually all other corporations who focus on selling direct to customer, depends entirely on the purchases of the consumer. If consumers literally demand that Whole Foods removes tumor-linked GMOs from their stories, stopping a major flow of income to Monsanto and other biotech giants, then they will be forced to comply.



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Anthony Gucciardi

Anthony is an accomplished investigative journalist whose articles have appeared on top news sites and have been read by millions worldwide. A health activist and researcher, Anthony’s goal is informing the public as to how they can use natural methods to revolutionize their health, as well as exploring the behind the scenes activity of the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA.

Top Stories

16 comments on "YouTube Removes Undercover Video Showing Whole Foods GMO Misinformation"

arricrogger

July 17, 2013 11:10am

Akureyri is nestled at the governor of Iceland's longest fjord, the 60km Eyjafjör?ur, which sits at the degrading of snowcapped peaks. Trees and well-tended gardens belie the location, reasonable 100km south of the Arctic Circle.
http://www.dreyfus.pl
http://www.activetrans.com.pl  
http://www.bigowanie.pl
http://www.ideaestate.pl
http://www.funvar.pl

Dominating the community from its hilltop arrange is Akureyri's church, Akureyrarkirkja. It was consecrated in 1940 and designed by Gu?jón Samúelsson, the just the same architect front-office for Reykjavík's momentous Hallgrímskirkja church. The surface looks like a stylised 1920s US skyscraper, while inside is a large 3,200-pipe part and a series of rather untraditional reliefs of the life of Christ.
http://www.zbowid.com.pl
http://www.visausa.pl
http://www.zanadesign.pl
http://www.malvare.pl
http://www.altix.com.pl

About 500m south, the assets of works get-up-and-go on display in Lystigar?urinn, the wonderful’s most northerly botanical garden, is astonishing bearing in mind its latitude. On the irascible of the gardens, Scandi-chic Café Björk offers a lunch buffet of soups and salads, and tons visitors amble down Spitalavegur road to reach unassuming Brynja, known across Iceland as a remedy for some of the excellent ice cream in the mountains (the muted to scrutinize is made with milk, not cream; blend with classic with vanilla, chocolate dip and your realm of possibilities of nuts or candy sprinkles).
Alfresco cafe tables and souvenir shops activity the trite shopping strip, Hafnarstrati, located in the centre of town. An incumbent facsimile troll and a stuffed polar be patient with produce cheesy photo ops for the benefit of avid tourists, but there are reliable treasures to be inaugurate as well. At the Enwrap Anna store (Hafnarstrati 100; 461-4120) shaft can be seen knitting lopapeysur (well-known Icelandic woollen sweaters). Bumper bookstore Eymundsson stocks inordinate striking tomes, while Geysir sells first-rate, locally-designed clothing, strongly-worded on the population motif.

arricrogger

July 17, 2013 11:09am

Akureyri is nestled at the governor of Iceland's longest fjord, the 60km Eyjafjör?ur, which sits at the degrading of snowcapped peaks. Trees and well-tended gardens belie the location, reasonable 100km south of the Arctic Circle.
http://www.dreyfus.pl
http://www.activetrans.com.pl  
http://www.bigowanie.pl
http://www.ideaestate.pl
http://www.funvar.pl

Dominating the community from its hilltop arrange is Akureyri's church, Akureyrarkirkja. It was consecrated in 1940 and designed by Gu?jón Samúelsson, the just the same architect front-office for Reykjavík's momentous Hallgrímskirkja church. The surface looks like a stylised 1920s US skyscraper, while inside is a large 3,200-pipe part and a series of rather untraditional reliefs of the life of Christ.
http://www.zbowid.com.pl
http://www.visausa.pl
http://www.zanadesign.pl
http://www.malvare.pl
http://www.altix.com.pl

About 500m south, the assets of works get-up-and-go on display in Lystigar?urinn, the wonderful’s most northerly botanical garden, is astonishing bearing in mind its latitude. On the irascible of the gardens, Scandi-chic Café Björk offers a lunch buffet of soups and salads, and tons visitors amble down Spitalavegur road to reach unassuming Brynja, known across Iceland as a remedy for some of the excellent ice cream in the mountains (the muted to scrutinize is made with milk, not cream; blend with classic with vanilla, chocolate dip and your realm of possibilities of nuts or candy sprinkles).
Alfresco cafe tables and souvenir shops activity the trite shopping strip, Hafnarstrati, located in the centre of town. An incumbent facsimile troll and a stuffed polar be patient with produce cheesy photo ops for the benefit of avid tourists, but there are reliable treasures to be inaugurate as well. At the Enwrap Anna store (Hafnarstrati 100; 461-4120) shaft can be seen knitting lopapeysur (well-known Icelandic woollen sweaters). Bumper bookstore Eymundsson stocks inordinate striking tomes, while Geysir sells first-rate, locally-designed clothing, strongly-worded on the population motif.

danaCreative

October 29, 2012 8:01pm

Mr. Gucciardi,

What's unfortunate is that you immediately lose credibility as a journalist when you can't tell the difference between 'genetic' and 'generic'. Your editor has failed you.

JoeWeinstein

October 08, 2012 5:10pm

Before demonizing please reread Gucciardi's well-written and balanced article, which touches on - without confusing - a potpourri of issues (Youtube policy, free and responsible speech, GMO dangers, GMO labeling, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's policies of stocking and employee training, etc.).

For twenty years I have been vegetarian and the last three years near-vegan (pisco-vegan, with the occasional rare fish preferably being sardine or no higher in the food chain). So I am a regular TJ and WF customer. (TJ is my prime grocery story, being very close to home.) Each of these chains offers me relatively many choices of good foods (organic - vegan - non-GMO) and not an impossible number of bad foods (non-organic or non-vegan or GMO) to have to sort through to get to the good ones.

In the last couple months I too have become far more anxious about GMOs and much less tolerant of them - thanks to Nation of Change's stories, the video Genetic Roulette, and the impending vote here in California on Prop 37. Despite my new GMO jitters, I realize that it is unreasonable to expect instant perfection from either WF or TJ. What's always been going for both chains is that they offer many good foods and not that they don't also offer bad foods.
In both chains employees want to help but often are there just for the job - and are not perfectly trained nor perfectly informed nor totally into good food.

So at this point both WF and TJ - and maybe in some localities other stores like theirs - need support and positive encouragement to do better. It's not them but the other - far more regressive - chains that may merit boycott.

Mdhunt

October 07, 2012 7:23pm

I am going to BOYCOTT Whole Foods, and welcome others to join me. It is WORSE when you are betrayed by someone whom you've trusted!!!!

Time for WF to get a $$$ WTF from those of us who are P.O.'d by their failure to support the GMO labeling proposition.

NO more of my $ to WF until they apologize and immediately change course.

MichaelDalyArtist

October 07, 2012 4:35pm

Whole Foods has been sprung!

Its ugly – those defending Whole Foods are those who have lost their way – they cannot distinguish between the satin brand and the cruel facts – they are holy consumers and workers, USA consumer culturists – like journalists on the campaign trail without a truth monitor or fact checker – as if their very being is not of any consequence in the landscape – well it’s looking very much like they are right.

Corporate/political campaigns and costumes in the USA are, sadly, the very mass perception and goals for happiness, wholeness and health – but its fake –all fake sold to people by corporate despots – but what goes up must come down that’s why catastrophe in the USA is big – real big – and spreading with Globalization – and one’s catastrophe is a big capitalist’s profit. The USA is of concern to everybody – especially for non USA residents – the USA lost its sovereignty in 1945 the week it lit two A-Bombs, one on Hiroshima the other Nagasaki - it never regained it’s sovereignty as it continues to overly impact and hold the world in terror – such is the connection of the Pentagon, Wall Street, the Federal Reserve Bank and global cartels – all fake and anti-life. Monsanto Ag is every bit a part of the current and worsening domination.

The video producers who worked very hard for their cause here have some superbug quality – the more Monsanto sprays Whole Foods and the whole system the more these warriors build resistance while their schools of mates become mutated, compliant - good as dead. The fact that GMOs are pervasive in the system now, and that somehow justifies Whole Food inventory is cause enough for outrage. The video is comparable to any legitimate undercover report, say by Frontline or 60 Minutes.

You Tube has a lot of explaining to do.

If You Tube had an ounce of community concern they would bounce the clip to the front where it could have 10 million views. Whole Foods has a lot of resources and the apparent “badge” to clean up the whole industry – but instead have become part of it. With, what little markers, cardboard signs and all that I can muster I will be adding WHOLE FOODS to the anti-GMO campaigns i'm involved in and put them squarely on the list of anti-life/anti-Christ: MONSANTO, PIONEER SEEDS, SYNGENTA BASF, DOW, BAYER.

johnb3950

October 07, 2012 3:54pm

The article mentions Trader Joe's: in fact TJ's state that all their own-label products are non-GMO. That's about 80% of their items. They don't make the same statement for the remainder, presumably due to the sheer difficulty of finding non-GMO sources. Seems like a pretty decent approach to me.

Also, can anyone provide a definitive response to the question from JCASTRON - does Organic imply non-GMO?

VHanson

October 07, 2012 7:55pm

In California, organic certification is handled by CCOF
http://www.ccof.org/aboutorganic.php
which states: Certified organic food in the United States is grown according to standards set by the National Organic Program.
According to those standards, Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.

Here's a link to the text of the Federal NATIONAL ORGANIC PROGRAM regulations, which spells out the meaning of various terms:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=7171ab7fc083319...

It states: Excluded methods. A variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology). Such methods do not include the use of traditional breeding, conjugation, fermentation, hybridization, in vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.

So I read this as meaning that, to be certified organic, products must not be raised using 'Excluded Methods' like transgenic and other genetic manipulation "not possible under natural conditions or processes," except for however the 'exceptions' for 'traditional' breeding methods.

It is worth noting that the genetic engineering methods used in farmed shellfish and 'non-GMO' finfish are poorly publicized or understood and therefor have risen to market dominance 'under the radar'. This is one big reason for the disjuncture between EU and US organic standards equivalence (in addition to import bans on US shellfish due to low sanitary standards).
Briefly, nearly all shellfish and finfish have had polyploid variants developed by disrupting the natural splitting into 2 half-genome cells, during meiosis, which leave the egg or sperm with 2 copies of every chromosome, instead of the normal 1 copy of every chromosome which is meant to combine with the opposite sex reproductive cell (egg or sperm) to form a new offspring with one set of chromosomes from each parent. The normal form is called 'diploid' - for 2 copies. When a 2-copy cell mates with a 1-copy cell, a 'triploid' offspring results. There's also a process for creating sperm with 4-copies of each chromosome, which mates with a 2-copy egg, to form what the industry calls 'Natural Triploids'. Sounds cute and wholesome, but it's a devastating reproductive disruption with unknown and uncontrollable cascading effects on the open-water systems where such abnormal populations are reared.
Because no foreign genes are introduced, this type of genetic engineering has not received the scrutiny it deserves.

In plants, polyploidy is common and naturally adaptive (industry harps on 'seedless fruit' as assurance of triploid safety. However, in animals polyploidy produces profound developmental and physical abnormalities! These include dysfunctional sexual cycles which are not really 'sterile' although industry PR always calls them such to ally criticism. In shellfish, polyploids grow bigger, faster, and stay sexually immature, so they are more profitable and appealing to a market kept ignorant of the franken-shell laboratory freaks being sold - virtually all oysters, clams, mussels, scallops, even abalone and shrimp, plus catfish, tilapia, and many others.

Most 'polyploidy' in mammals fails before birth. Modern birth-defect intervention is able to maintain pregnancies with 'triploid' abnormalities, for example, Down's Syndrome - the 47th chromosome is a 'triploid' of one chromosome; Spina Bifida can be produced by 'triploid' of all chromosome - both are very serious reproductive disruptions to normal development.

JCastron

October 07, 2012 1:33pm

Let us not soft-soap WF as this innocent entity duped by the likes of Monsanto. They, WF, are as much a part of the Corporate philosophy as Monsanto. When I discovered what was obvious pesticide powder residue on "Organic Lettuce" WF explained it away as, and I'll quote as best I can, "Producers are allowed, under circumstances, to use pesticide". They are correct about that but it shocked me when this teaspoonful of blue powder was found by me. I am sure WF is still a pretty good source of wholesome food but is also a source of not-so-healthy food. I do not believe that the word Organic is a guarantee of a product being NON-GMO. Let's help WF make the decision to be more health conscious because it is the 'kooks' of the world (us) that have made them successful and we can leave them just as readily. In fact, I have stopped using them as often as I once did and it is because of this and other similar objections.

mdhansen

October 07, 2012 11:14am

Interesting article. I read all of the labels on everything I buy, so if there is no label....hmm.

I do want to point out that the word for the YouTube message is very likely "generic" and not "genetic".

This is Kay

October 07, 2012 9:50am

Well, the video is a bit heavy handed. It should be clear to anyone with a brain that unless it says Organic, you take a risk of it being tainted with GMO ingredients since they are virtually everywhere. And in the video, it is clearly shown that even Whole Foods says something to that effect. You can't expect the guy who fills the food bin or stocks the shelves to be the guy with all the answers. The video implies that this is some calculated devious plan by Whole Foods to get you in the door and then poison you. Instead of being angry with WF, be angry at the Kasha company who stamps "all natural" on the box. I would never expect WF (or any health food store) to be going over every single item on their shelf with a lab kit to find that GMO corn/soy imbedded within. I often see vegetables there labeled "conventional". I don't assume they are organic, non-GMO or any other label you want it to have. They carry both. You decided which you want to pay for. It's all labeled. And since you really don't know that WF had the video pulled from YouTube, this is also just unsubstantiated ranting. I don't like GMO products and wish Monsanto were removed from the face of the earth, but this story and associated video seem to be just going out of the way to demonize Whole Foods as some evil entity. Focus your hatred on Dow and Monsanto if you wish to bring about Prop 37. Whole Foods endorsed Prop 37 back in Sept. The video doesn't mention that.

shirtour

October 07, 2012 12:09pm

Kay, even is everything you say is valid, what I want to see is Whole Foods joining the other 33 companies that have contributed to support Pro. 37. This can come from their millionaire CEO's or from the company itself.
Money talks. Until such a time as this happens I do not give Whole Foods one penny!

Dave Moff

October 07, 2012 9:36am

YouTube owes an explanation to the producers of the video. If someone had a legitimate complaint, it should be spelled out and the producers allowed to post an amended version. There is no need to reveal the identity of the person who complained--merely the nature of the complain, and let the court of public opinion determine whether it is legitimate.

When one considers the sort of material YouTube hosts without blinking an eye, this is indeed suspicious.

therealjoeschmoe

October 07, 2012 12:55pm

But the producers can reveal the identities of people shot covertly? The video is good EXCEPT for the poor job to conceal identities of people on hidden camera. They didn't know they were on camera and it just detracts from the important messages in the video. I work in the field and much more care should have been taken in tracking the graphic over their faces. That's just one reason for YouTube to kicked it to the curb.

Curtis Smay

October 07, 2012 9:43am

I doubt if you would believe it if god was the author.

rcrayburn

October 07, 2012 2:38pm

GMO debate
The ongoing discussion of this issue that I have read in the past was focused on the science behind GMO crops and recent studies. It seemed to get bogged down with the idea that there is nothing wrong with GMO crops from a scientist (one person in the chat specialty seemed tI believed was a geneticist and was arguing in favor of GMO) point of view. I don't doubt that he is a competent scientist and truly believes in the efficacy of GMO technology. He compared the GMO controversy with global climate change. As I understood it, he put those people who are against GMO in the same class of people as those who do not believe the earth's climate is changing. He also made the argument that people have been modifying the genetic make-up of plants and animals for hundreds if not thousands of years (think of hybrid crops, animal breeds, etc.) This argument that GMO is nothing different than what humans have been doing for a long time is similar to an argument that some people who ignore climate change make when they state that the climate has changed for eons. So what's the big deal, the climate is changing again like it has in the past. In both cases the big deal is not necessarily the change itself, it is how quickly the change is occuring. We already know that the climate is changing at a much faster rate than we have evidence for in the past. This change started occuring during the industrialization of First World Countries. It has accelerated since creating havoc in biomes and ecosystems around the world.

The problem with GMO technology is we don't really know what the consequences down the road for taking this leap are just as those people who started the industrial revolution could not have anticipated the consequences of their actions centuries later. Our understanding of our environment and organisms deepens every day. Genes do not act alone. They are part of a system.
To discount the effects of the system, the organism in which the genes reside as being inconsequential is unwise. We also now know that genes can be turned off and on depending on environmental conditions. We know that genes do not have as specific roles as we once thought and some genes that we thought did nothing actually "turn on" in special circumstances. Genes often work in tandem with other genes. It is an oversimplification to think we can splice genetic material from one organism and put it in another and expect only the results we anticipated.

It is better to error on the side of caution and slow down the pace of applying genetic engineering in our daily lives than have to live with the havoc created by unintended consequences of unleashing this technology in our environment. This the only planet we have. The hubris of man is when he thinks he can act as if he were god, or a god, on his environment with belief that he really knows what he is doing.