SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – Their oats have always been non-GMO. But until now, General Mills had been using genetically-modified corn starch in their most famous brand cereal, Cheerios. Then, on January 2, the food giant announced it would no longer be using GMOs to produce the iconic breakfast meal eaten by millions of Americans.

The decision lent more power to the growing global movement against GMOs, as activists claimed another victory Friday in the worldwide push to force companies to abandon the use of genetically modified corn and other foodstuffs.

"We don’t use genetically modified ingredients in original Cheerios," read the General Mills statement. "Our principal ingredient has always been whole grain oats – and there are no GMO oats. We use a small amount of corn starch in cooking, and just one gram of sugar per serving for taste. But our corn starch comes from non-GMO corn, and we use only non-GMO pure cane sugar."

Across America, the news was greeted with measured optimism as food activists praised the company's decision, saying it would contribute to ending the still-popular belief that GMOs are a viable, sustainable future solution for food production.

Genetic modification is a method of seed development that uses "desirable traits" in a plant, such as corn and oats, that are then planted by farmers.

Although most GMOs have been approved by national oversight agencies, farmers are forbidden from keeping the seeds from one harvest to the nex – forcing farmers to purchase new seedlings annually in order to maintain their fields.

Soy beans are among the most controversial in the United States, having received publicity in the documentary film Food, Inc., which highlighted the detrimental impact GMOs have on farmers in the United States and abroad.

Ohio-based corn producer John Restin, who has fought against GMO seeds for much of the past decade, told Occupy.com that General Mills's decision could be a watershed moment for plant production that moves away from GMOs.

"We have long pushed companies to reduce and end their use of GMOs on farmers who contribute to national companies and until recently we were met with antagonism, but the global community's continued pressure seems to be paying off," Restin said.

He referred to Mexico's recent decision to end GM corn production in the country, and hopes that move and the recent Cheerios decision will help bring about a more equitable landscape for farmers, companies and customers.

"The use of GMOs is not sustainable and we are facing a turning point in the global economy away from GMOs," Restin continued. "This decision will impact a great deal of people and will bring about dramatic changes to how other companies do things."

Still, Restin and others know there is great work to be done to get General Mills and other large food producers to remove GMOs entirely from their list of ingredients. Many point to the General Mills statement for not going far enough. In its statement, the company said GMO crops including corn, soy and beet sugar "would make reliably moving to non-GM ingredients difficult, if not impossible."

However, Restin argues that this belief is part of the difficulty that activists and others are facing in the fight against GMOs.

"We know that companies see GMOs as a solution to their bulk crop purchases and they often believe that GMO means more sustainability, but what GMOs do to soil and farmers is hard to overcome," he said.

"Once you are using GMOs, it is difficult to change and grow other crops – even the same non-GMO, because the soil is being changed on its own."

Many more remain skeptical over the Cheerios decision, as General Mills appears to be backtracking on recent attempts to fight GMO labeling across the country. In 2012, the company spent around $1.1 million to battle Proposition 37 in California, which called for mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods.

In the same year, General Mills attempted to clarify that it was behind a "national solution," but opposed state-by-state regulation on GMOs.

Yet the company's move in the first days of 2014 show that the war against GMOs might be, finally, heading in activists' direction, as further state ballot measures begin to crop up. Although a bill was recently rejected in Washington state to require GMO labeling, supporters of the measure say it's only a matter of time before GMOs are labeled on all products or weened from the system altogether.

Sarah Martin, a San Francisco writer and environmentalist, believes that the Mexican government's move to bar GMO corn in the country was a "huge moment" for the global activist community.

"With Mexico now joining the battle against GMOs on our side, I think it will show companies that the consumers and the people who care about the world are largely against GMOs," Martin said, "and we believe General Mills is ahead of the curve because they are listening to the people and what people want to buy. It's a matter of using our wallets as an activist tool."

Martin likened the recent progress against GMOs to the 1990s push against transfats. Even though no national legislation was introduced banning the fat from use, companies listened to their consumer base and have largely reduced or eliminated the substance from their foodstuffs.

"That campaign shows that in our capitalist society, we still have power to make change happen. Transfats are gone and this was without legislation banning it," she argued. "People spoke up and now people are speaking up against GMOs. I think we are going to see more progress in the year to come."

Whole Foods has also jumped on the bandwagon, announcing it is phasing out GMO food that isn't labeled. The company's decision could revolutionize Americans' shopping experience, said Martin, by creating "an industry that is weary of how people react to GMOs."

Cheerios is one of if not the most known cereal brand in America today, with its fabled history dating back decades. As a result, General Mills's decision could send the message to other companies that the time for change is now.

Green America's corporate responsibility director, Todd Larsen, highlighted what the Cheerios move could mean for the future of food in America.

"Original Cheerios in its famous yellow box will now be non-GMO and this victory sends a message to all food companies that consumers are increasingly looking for non-GMO products," he said. The end result is that "companies need to meet that demand."

How soon others will follow, or if General Mills will remove other GMO crops from their ingredient list, has yet to be seen. But the people are speaking, on the streets and at the register, and they're saying it clearly: No to GMOs.

general_mills_earns.jpg