Robyn O’Brien is the co-founder of rePlant Capital, an impact investment firm, deploying integrated capital from soil to shelf in order to build soil health and financial resiliency for farmers. She is also the founder of Do Good, a strategic advisory firm, and the AllergyKids Foundation. Random House published Robyn’s book, The Unhealthy Truth, in 2009, and her TEDx talks have been translated into dozens of languages and viewed by millions around the world.
Service to our country was instilled in us at a young age. It runs deep in my family: my dad, my uncles, both grandfathers and even my mom all served our country (she was in Vietnam as a nurse with Save the Children).
So I can’t let today pass without a thank you to our nation’s veterans.
I think about the sacrifices that my grandmothers made: one held three jobs while raising four boys while her husband was away. The other sent her husband off to the World War, where my grandfather served as a clergyman to the soldiers.
My grandmother was pregnant at the time, and my grandfather didn’t meet my mom until he returned home when she was three years old. It is hard to imagine sacrifices like that, but we would not be here without them.
My dad has always worn his patriotism on his sleeve. It’s how we were raised—to raise the bar a little bit higher on ourselves, to be the best that we could be, to make family and our country proud, to serve.
The courage of our military and the sacrifices of those families is something that we can never take for granted. Those liberties and freedoms were hard earned.
Right now, our children, should they take the field, would require epipens, asthma inhalers and insulin injections to accompany them. They are our future military. We have to fight for their freedoms, too.
No one is talking about this in the presidential debate, but a country that defends the health of its citizens, its children, also defends its economy, innovation, its liberties and prosperities.
Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost that. Our kids are not healthy enough to take the field.
My dad, uncles and grandfathers bravely fought for the health of our country. As we do our part, bowing our heads in gratitude for those that came before us, protecting these liberties that we hold so dear, our generation faces a unique challenge to our freedoms:
Are we doing everything that we can today to protect the health and safety of our children, so that they can protect the health, safety and liberties of our country in the years to come?
We can not afford to get this wrong. We owe it to our military, our veterans, our economy, our families and our future.
The health of our families is changing. With each new diagnosis, whether due to a food allergies, diabetes, a cancer diagnosis or something else, we are learning more about our food and that it now contains a lot of artificial ingredients that aren’t used in other countries.
The journal Pediatrics reports that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls). In the U.S., there is an artificial growth hormone in our milk supply, rbGH, that no other developed country uses. Breyer’s recently dumped this artificial growth hormone, following on the heels of countless other food companies and grocery retailers.
The FDA still hasn’t said much about it.
As I took a look at the FDA’s website on milk, I found something that I hadn’t seen before when it comes to the fortification process where vitamins are added.
For the past almost 20 years, much of our nation’s milk has come from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone.
According to the FDA’s website, “a number of different types of concentrates are available. All contain vitamin D and/or vitamin A palmitate with a carrier consisting of any of the following: butter oil, corn oil, evaporated milk, non-fat dry milk, polysorbate 80, propylene glycol and glycerol monooleate. It is best to store all concentrates under refrigeration unless manufacturer’s directions indicate otherwise. To achieve adequate dispersion, viscous concentrates should be brought to room temperature before addition.”
A growing number of Americans are allergic to milk. Milk allergy has taken the lives of several children. Are we allergic to milk or to what’s been done to it?
Here’s a little history lesson about the introduction of this artificial growth hormones into the American milk supply in 1994.
For the past almost 20 years, much of our nation’s milk has come from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone. If you didn’t know that, you’re not alone. Since it was never labeled, most of us had no idea that this hormone was introduced into our dairy in 1994. The hormone has two interchangeable names: recombinant bovine somatropine (rBST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
RBGH has dominated the milk market almost since the FDA approved it in 1993. It was the first genetically engineered product ever brought to market. And the Associated Press (AP), the New York Timesand the rest of the media have called it “controversial” (the AP headline actually referred to it as “a bumper crop of controversy”).
So what is rBGH anyway? Although the product is made in a lab, it’s designed to mimic a hormone that’s naturally produced in a cow’s pituitary glands. It’s injected into cows every two weeks to boost their hormonal activity, causing them to produce an additional 10 to 15 percent more milk, or about one extra gallon each day. And within the first four years of its introduction in 1994, about one-third of the nation’s cows were in herds being treated with this growth hormone.
If all you knew about rBGH and this hormone was that it increased milk production, you might think it was a good thing. Why shouldn’t we use every means at our disposal to boost the supply of such a nutritious food?
Well, besides increasing milk production, rBGH apparently does a few other things, too.
First of all, the product seems to be hazardous to the cows. The package itself warns of such bovine problems as “increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus,” “decreases in gestation length and birthweight of calves,” and “increased risk of clinical mastitis.” Mastitis is a painful type of udder infection that causes cows to pump out bacteria and pus along with milk, requiring treatment with antibiotics and other meds that can end up in the milk.
When I first read this, I had to stop and walk away from the computer for a few minutes. How many bottles and sippy cups had I filled with this milk? Why hadn’t I known about rBGH when I was pouring countless bowls of cereal for my children? I shuddered at the thought that along with the milk, I had also been giving them doses of growth hormone and antibiotics, not to mention potentially exposing them to cow bacteria and udder pus. How had I not known about this Dirty Dairy?
Want some antiobiotics with that growth hormone?
On top of that, and is often cited in the press (most recently by Laurie David), 80% of antibiotics are now used on our livestock here in the U.S. And overexposure to antibiotics tends to kill off the friendly bacteria in our intestines—bacteria that we need for our digestion and immune system. Many doctors believe that too many antibiotics at too early an age is part of the reason that kids are more likely to be allergic: their immune systems aren’t being given the “microbial environment” that they require. Wonder how many “extra” antibiotics our kids are getting in their milk, cheese, and yogurt? Maybe it’s not just about those hand sanitizers.
And then on top of that, allergies are the body’s response to proteins that it considers “toxic invaders,” and that genetically engineered proteins may spark new allergies. According to CNN and a recent study published in the Journal of Allergy and Immunology, milk allergy is now the most common food allergy in the U.S., having risen to the number-one position in the last 10 years. It’s even starting to affect the sale of milk in schools. Might rBGH be a factor in that increase? We wouldn’t have a clue. No human studies were conducted.
The Canadian federal health agency actually found that “the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50 percent” in cows that were given rBGH.
But let’s get back to the cows, because rBGH can hurt them in several more ways. The label also warns of possible increase in digestive disorders, including diarrhea; increased numbers of lacerations on the cows’ hocks (shins); and a higher rate of subclinical mastitis.
Bad enough when dairy cows get visibly sick, because then they’re treated with antibiotics that end up in our milk. But what about the cows who are getting sick at a subclinical level—a level so subtle that farmers don’t notice it? Think of the bacteria and pus pouring out of those inflamed udders—infections that aren’t even being treated! How does drinking that milk affect us, our kids, and our babies in the womb?
Those are just the problems acknowledged on the rBGH product label. Another concern is that the extra hormones drain the cows’ bones of calcium, so that they tend to become lame. The Canadian federal health agency actually found that “the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50 percent” in cows that were given rBGH. Partly as a result, Canada has banned the product, concluding that it “presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows.”
rBGH is banned in other developed countries but not in the U.S.
Canada isn’t the only country to bar rBGH. The genetically altered hormone has also been banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, the U.N. agency that sets food safety standards, Codex Alimentarius, has refused to approve rGBH not just once but twice.
Farmers themselves have noticed problems with the product. In addition to the expense of the drug itself, rBGH results in higher feed bills, higher vet bills due to increased antibiotic use, and more cows removed from the herd due to illness or low productivity. One study found that 25 to 40 percent of dairy farmers who tried rBGH soon gave it up because it wasn’t profitable enough to justify the damage to their cows. Other farmers have said that they see how hard the product is on cows, and they don’t want to subject their animals to such treatment.
Okay, so that’s why rBGH hurts cows. But I’m way more concerned about us and our kids. How does having a genetically altered hormone in our milk supply affect us?
Health concerns include possible link to cancer
As early as 1998, an article in the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reported that women with even relatively small increases of a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) were up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer.
And guess what? According to a January 1996 report in the International Journal of Health Services, rBGH milk has up to 10 times the IGF-1 levels of natural milk. More recent studies have put the figure even higher, at something like 20-fold.
Now stop and think about that for a minute, while correlation is not causation, breast cancer used to be something that women got later in life. Premenopausal breast cancer was so rare that when young women presented their physicians with breast cancer symptoms, the doctors often failed to diagnose it, simply because it was so unlikely that an “older women’s disease” would be found among young women.
But according to the Young Survival Coalition, one in 229 women between the ages of 30 and 39 will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the next ten years. Why are all these young women now getting breast cancer? And what about the effects of IGF-1-laden milk on older women, who are already at greater risk for breast cancer?
In case you think that the rising cancer rates have something to do with genetics, stop and think again. According to the Breast Cancer Fund, 1 in 8 women now have breast cancer. But only 10 percent of those cases can be linked to genetics. In other words, 90 percent of breast cancers being diagnosed today are being triggered by factors in our environment.
How did this happen?
Now if you’re like me, your next question probably is, So, if we know all of this, how did this hormone find its way into our dairy products? How did our government agencies, responsible for ensuring the safety of our food, allow the use of this growth hormone and the sale of IGF-1-laden milk? Why was rBGH not used in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but used so freely right here in our own United States?
Well, the year before the FDA approved the first genetically engineered protein, it said, “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.” But at the same time, the corporate communication’s director of Monsanto, company introducing rBGH, said, ” We should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job.”
You read that right. It’s kind of a “Who’s on first?” routine. Didn’t we learn anything from the tobacco industry?
So with the jury still out on this one, no long-term human trials ever conducted, a self-regulated industry whose “interest is in selling as much of it as possible,” the increasing rates of antibiotics used on our livestock (not to mention the increasing rates of early puberty and cancer), and the stunning fact that this synthetic growth hormone was never approved for use in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 27 countries in Europe, maybe it’s time we start to exercise a little bit of precaution here in the U.S., too.
How to Opt-Out of rBGH
Thankfully, we can opt out of this experiment and look for milk labeled “organic” or “rBGH-free”— since by law, these types of milk are not allowed to contain rBGH, a genetically engineered product that was never allowed into the milk, cheese, ice creams and other dairy products in other developed countries. And you can find this milk in Wal-Mart, Costco & Sam’s.
And while correlation is not causation, with the American Cancer Society telling us that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes and the Centers for Disease Control reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15, a precautionary move like this one just might be what the doctors ordered (at least that’s what they did in all 27 countries in Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Japan).
So are we allergic to milk? Or to what’s been done to it?
We just wanted to give you a little love and a heartfelt thank you for your recent announcement to remove artificial dyes from your bakery products.
This is a huge move for American parents, because as you may know, these artificial colors are not allowed in kids’ foods in other countries like in the U.K. And while our asks may have fallen on deaf ears at the FDA, we are so grateful that you are listening.
We recently had a dear friend from Texas share this shout-out on her Facebook page. What you may not know about her is that she played a lead role of “Little Miss Sunshine” in one of our musicals in middle school. We’ve known each other for a long time! We can honestly say that your announcement brought this out in her again! Only this time, with the heart of a mom.
Here is what she wrote:
“THANK YOU, WEGMANS, for eliminating artificial color from the bakery!! It may seem silly, that I’m making a really big deal over sprinkles and icing and birthday cake. Even I am surprised by how meaningful this is to me, actually. Griffy has a severe allergic reaction to food dye. If he can’t have cake (for instance), ok, no cake.Though it may be disappointing, it is not a huge deal and his food allergy sure could be worse. But the fact that he COULD have a cupcake, or an orange pumpkin cookie, or a donut, along with everyone else, is remarkable. I kept taking things up to the counter, in disbelief that there was no dye. But it’s true. No more dye in the cake, no more dye in the icing. Less dye throughout the whole store.
(It makes more sense to me now, that Wegmans store brand marshmallows are dye-free, while “the leading brand” contains artificial color.) ?I have always loved Wegmans, but now it’s like a whole new level.
The number of people in the U.S. with food allergies is skyrocketing.
The rate of people with peanut allergy in the United States more than quadrupled between 1997 and 2010. A life-threatening food allergic reaction now sends someone to the E.R. once every three minutes in the U.S.
The food industry is getting in on it. Mondelez, formerly known as Kraft, recently acquired Enjoy Life Foods, a popular and well-loved brand in the allergy space, free from many of the top eight allergens and also free from genetically modified ingredients.
It was a $40 million company that was acquired for $130 million.
What does Mondelez plan to do with the acquisition? Grow it into a billion dollar brand.
What are some other billion dollar brands? Cheerios, Lays, Pepsi, Starbucks….
And EpiPen.
According to Bloomberg, “In a 2007 purchase of medicines from Merck, drug maker Mylan picked up a decades-old product, the EpiPen auto injector for food allergy and bee-sting emergencies. Management first thought to divest the aging device, which logged only $200 million in revenue. Today, it’s a $1 billion-a-year product that clobbers its rivals and provides about 40 percent of Mylan’s operating profits.”
Food allergies are not a niche, it is a growing epidemic that is challenging how we think about our food and how it is made. Genetic factors don’t change this quickly, environmental factors do. Are we allergic to food or to what’s been done to it? The biotech industry will say there is no evidence of any harm from genetically engineered foods. Since we didn’t label these foods in the U.S., there is no evidence period. But what if we had labels? We would have more data.
Someone who has a horrific reaction to e.coli in organic spinach can trace it back to the organic spinach, because it is labeled. Genetically engineered ingredients aren’t labeled in the U.S. Because these ingredients are not labeled, there is no traceability, and with that, no accountability and no liability should these ingredients prove to cause harm.
But it doesn’t stop allergic reactions from happening, so a lot of families have to pay more for free-from food.
Researchers report that the costs of food allergies, from medical care to food to pharmaceuticals is $4,184 per child per year, costing our economy $25 billion, including lost productivity.
Researchers reporting in the Journal of the American Medical Association states that the costs of food allergies, from medical care to food to pharmaceuticals is $4,184 per child per year, costing our economy $25 billion, including lost productivity.
On top of that, the costs to families with food allergies is skyrocketing. After insurance company discounts, a package of two EpiPens costs about $415. By comparison, in France, where Meda sells the drug, two EpiPens cost about $85. Back in 2007, when the company was purchased, it cost $57. EpiPens wholesale price rose 400% since 2007 and 32% in the last year alone. EpiPen margins were 55 percent in 2014, up from 9 percent in 2008.
According to Bloomberg, the company’s marketing techniques play on the fears of parents and caregivers. There is no incentive here to find a cure or to stop the condition. Sales are explosive.
To discount this condition in any way is irresponsible, but it is just one of the conditions that is triggering a food awakening around the country.
In the last year, Target, Chipotle, Kroger, even General Mills and Cheerios have responded to this growing demand in the marketplace. Free-from foods are showing up in Dollar Tree stores.
These companies aren’t stupid. They see the escalating rates of diseases in their own employees, they feel the financial impact with their own health care costs, and they hear consumers that are saying they want to eat fewer fake, artificial and genetically engineered ingredients.
While the chemical companies selling these new ingredients say there is no evidence of harm, consumers are saying: there is no evidence since these ingredients were never labeled in the United States.
In other words, if you walked into an allergist’s office and asked if you were allergic to soy that has been in the food supply for thousands of years or if you are allergic to Roundup Ready soy, non-GMO soy treated with Roundup or organic soy, there would be no test to give you that answer. Next time, you are at the allergist’s office, ask which soy they are testing for.
With no labels on GMO ingredients in the US to trace their impact and no test to offer definitive answers, the biotech industry is able to claim that there is not a single documented case of these foods ever causing harm.
Not sure what the explosion in EpiPen sales says. But it’s significant. It’s significant to the families that use them and delivers significant revenue to the pharmaceutical company selling them, especially here in the United States.
A study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association, says yes, living in the United States increases your risk of allergic diseases……“significantly.”
“Living in the US raises risk of allergies,” says the headline.
According to the research, living in the United States for a decade or more may raise the risk of some allergies, reports the Journal of the American Medical Association.
“These data indicate that duration of residence in the United States is a previously unrecognized factor in the epidemiology of atopic disease,” it said.
In other words, the longer you live here, the more likely you are to develop some kind of allergy, asthma, eczema or other related condition.
Food allergies have been skyrocketing in the United States in the last fifteen years. Not only has the CDC reported a 265% increase in the rates of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions in a ten year period, but the sales of EpiPens, a life-saving medical device for those with food allergies, has also seen record sales growth according to the New York Times.
So what’s going on?
The study aimed to find out. Allergies reported in the survey included asthma, eczema, hay fever, and food allergies.
“Children born outside the United States had significantly lower prevalence of any allergic diseases (20.3%) than those born in the United States (34.5%),” said the study led by Jonathan Silverberg of St. Luke’s-Roosevelt Hospital Center in New York.
Let’s restate that:
Children born in the US have more than a 1 in 3 chance of having allergic diseases like food allergies, asthma or eczema, while kids born in other countries around the world had a “significantly lower prevalence” of 1 in 5.
On top of that, “foreign-born Americans develop increased risk for allergic disease with prolonged residence in the United States,” it said.
In other words, if you move here, your chances of developing any one or more of these allergic diseases increase.
The study went so far as to say that children born outside of the US who moved here showed “significantly” higher odds of developing these diseases.
What’s driving this? Is it really Purel and intense handwashing? And the hygiene hypothesis?
And are we allergic to food? Or what’s been done to it?
Because genetics don’t change that quickly, and the environment does.
This presents a risk not only to these children, but also to our economy, as the financial burden of these conditions and their associated health care costs impact not only families but also our country, our military and our productivity.
So what is triggering this escalating, US allergy epidemic?
According to Reuters report on the study and Dr. Ruchi Gupta, who studies allergies at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago but wasn’t involved in the new research, “This is definitely something we see clinically and we’re trying to better understand, what is it in our environment that’s increasing the risk of allergic disease?” said
“Food allergies have increased tremendously,” she told Reuters Health. “We do see people who come from other countries don’t tend to have it.”
Genetically engineered crops are created by inserting a protein from a different organism into the original crop’s genome. This is usually done to create a plant that is more resistant to insects or diseases.
The Food and Agriculture Organization within the World Health Organization has a structured approach to determining whether genetically engineered foods cause allergies, according to Venu Gangur, MSU assistant professor of food science and human nutrition, who also is a faculty member in the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center. “But it has a major flaw. A critical question in that process asks, ‘Does the protein cause an allergic reaction in animals?’ The problem is that there has been no good animal model available to test this.”
It’s food for thought.
The cost of food allergies is burdening more than just the families dealing with them, it’s burdening our schools, our health care system and our economy. It has become a billion dollar business in less than a decade for the company making EpiPens.
Just as cancer isn’t a niche, food allergies are no longer a fad.
Right now, the organic industry is growing at what seems like breakneck speed. Consumers can’t seem to get enough of it. The U.S. organic food market is expected to grow 14% from 2013-2018.
Investors are betting on it, and big food companies are, too. General Mills dropped $820 million to acquire Annie’s, Hormel paid $775 million to purchase Applegate. Wall Street is betting on it.
When Annie’s went public back in March of 2012, the company saw the biggest opening day gain of any company in any industry in almost a year under the ticker symbol BNNY. What does that mean? It means that Wall Street got more excited about a bowl of mac and cheese that didn’t have a bunch of junk in it than any other technology in any industry.
The numbers don’t lie. Big food sees big opportunity in the organic industry and is buying it up. Coca Cola and Goldman Sachs recently acquired an almost 50% stake in Suja, an organic juice company that is a millennial favorite. Why? Because they see the growth.
Kroger is expanding its organic product offering, Wal-Mart is launching a private label line, and Safeway is committing to further growth in the space. Demand is growing in zip codes around the country, not just in those for Whole Foods shoppers.
Kroger, back in 2012, launched its “Simple Truth” line, a private label free from a lot of artificial ingredients, additives and “Simple Truth Organic” which is free from high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, artificial colors, artificial growth hormones and more. What happened? The Simple Truth division went from $0 to almost $1 billion in revenue in a two year period.
So what’s going on? And is it sustainable?
Big Organic? More like big supply problem.
Right now, its’ not sustainable at all. The organic industry is growing at an incredible clip, one that is attractive to any investor, but the underlying fundamentals need to be restructured.
Why? Of the 915 million acres that we have under farm management in the United States, only 5.5 million are organic farmland. Less than 1%.
So we have an industry that is growing at 14% a year, that represents only 5% of the total U.S. food market, but is less than 1% of U.S. farmland.
Big Organic? More like big supply problem. For the industry to grow, farmland has to be converted. Perhaps that is why General Mills just committed to doubling the amount of organic acreage under management by 2020.
It can’t happen soon enough for shareholders and for spoon holders. The demand is obvious.
But “Big Organic”? At less than 1% of U.S. farmland with organic acreage, that is a big myth.
If we want to scale the organic industry, not only for our families, but also for the food companies that are buying into it, we have to address this bottleneck. If the Grocery Manufacturers Association is truly acting in the interests of its member companies, it should be leading the charge. It isn’t.
Which begs the question? Who will.
There is large regional variation in the area of land farmed organically. Oceania, which includes Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island nations, leads the world in certified organic land. Europe is close behind. The U.S. is lagging. Organic isn’t a silver bullet, but it also isn’t a fad.
Right now, in the United States, the Organic Trade Association is trying to expand organic acreage under management. But before roll your eyes and say, “Well, obviously.” Interestingly, it’s an association whose members also include companies like General Mills.
Over 3,000 farms are transitioning to organic across the country. 51% of families are buying more organic products than a year ago. In other words, this isn’t a niche anymore. So how do we address this growing demand as a country with such a limited supply?
Sales of organic food and non-food products in the United States totaled $39.1 billion in 2014. Total sales of Coca Cola alone was greater than the entire organic industry at $45.9 billion. The combined market caps of Coca Cola and Pepsi are ten times the size of the entire organic industry. Organic sales now near a milestone of 5% share of the total food market. Big Organic? Hardly.
Room for growth? Definitely. And that can look like either a threat or an opportunity.
So why the pushback? Why the defamation and slander? Doesn’t it seem to be in the best interests of both shareholders of the companies investing in the industry as well as the growing number of consumers who want it? Supply and demand would indicate that an increase in supply would help to bring pricing down. Doesn’t it seem to be in the interest of the 51% of families purchasing organic to make it more available and more affordable?
The industry is growing at 14% but still only represents 5% of the total food market. To hear the opposition talk, you’d think it was big, really BIG. At less than 1% of U.S. farmland as organic acreage, it’s anything but.
But the landscape in front of us is wide open, to convert farms and expand the supply chain, so that the 51% of families who want organic can find it at an affordable price.
Whole Foods can’t solve that for us. They are 3% of grocery. Kroger, Costco, Wal-Mart and Safeway can. A change in thinking can. Big Food can. And the biggest ask that we could be making of these companies is for them to commit to expanding organic acreage and to address this bottleneck.
Right now, conventional food has 95% of the playing field. Organic, while growing, has only 5%. To hear the opposition, you’d think it was a tied ballgame. It’s anything but. If we leveled the playing field, can you imagine what might happen? For farmers, food companies and the 51% of families who are now buying organic?
Yesterday, we received this email. It’s not the first time something like this has happened, and it won’t be the last. I’ve been on the front lines for ten years.
What I decided to do this time was to share it on social media.
Within minutes, I got a reply that I did not expect from a mom of two who works for Monsanto.
.@foodawakenings It happens on both sides I’m afraid. I am pro-gm, work for Monsanto and get hate like that everyday. No one deserves it!!
It was kind and rang true as the words of a mom. I thought about her response, the civility of it and how we are probably both teaching our kids how to navigate in this world of online bullying. I wondered how she shared her work with her kids and thought about the lessons that I’ve shared with ours: to always be respectful, to never threaten anyone online and to let us know if bullying happens.
I shared the anonymous email with the kids.
Then I shared the anonymous email with my web team.
This morning, I woke up to an email in my inbox from my team.
Because the same person who had sent the anonymous email also made a hate-filled comment on the site earlier that day, my team was able to track down who made the comments, name, email address, location and job.
Scary.
It was an incredible example and lesson about “anonymity” and online bullying.
Nothing is anonymous on the internet.
So many moms are trying to protect their children.
And as we navigate the “he said” “she said” science of the GMO space, there are going to be moms standing on both sides of the aisle.
And while we may not agree on the GMO issue, my hunch is that as moms, there is probably a lot that we do agree on when it comes to bullying, cyberbullying, profanities and unconditional love.
I will continue to try to elevate the conversation, and one way that I know that I can do that is to thank Aimee, the mom at Monsanto.
Thank you for your kind words last night. Your kids obviously have an awesome mom.
If you are not familiar with how the TPP works, you are not alone. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is one of the biggest trade agreements that our country has ever considered but that few are talking about.
This short two minute video will bring you up to speed quickly and explain why even Congress is not in favor of it.
What can you do? Reach out to your local member of Congress and let them know: democracy is not something that we want traded away.
Last week in the New York Times, the Center for Food Safety ran an ad focusing on the connection between genetically engineered crops and cancer.
The World Health Organization designated glyphosate (the active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup) a probable carcinogen to humans.
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is the division of the World Health Organization that released the report. IARC is one of the world’s leading authorities on cancer.
Today in the United States, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in U.S. children. The President’s Cancer Panel reports that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women (41% of Americans) are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes. Correlation is not causation, but a correlation of this magnitude merits further independent investigation.
The California EPA is working to label glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as a carcinogen. Almost all GMOs are designed to be used in conjunction with glyphosate, some are called “Roundup Ready” and have been genetically engineered to withstand increased applications of these ingredients.
So the next time you hear GMOs are “safe,” think about the cancer-causing potential of spraying food crops with nearly 300 million more pounds of glyphosate this year, think about “Roundup Ready” crops and the fact that they are labeled for over 60% of the world’s population but not here.
According to the President’s Cancer Panel, 1 in 2 men are expected to get cancer in their lifetime and 1 in 3 women. It’s now the leading cause of death by disease in American children.
1 in 2. Why aren’t we addressing this? What are we waiting for, 1 in 1? If 70% of cancers are preventable, is there something that we can be doing now?
Like too many, we’ve lost dear friends to cancer and have family battling the disease in too many forms. It used to be whispered about, but it’s time to make some noise.
The C Word Movie takes you inside the world of cancer from diagnosis to prevention. Through the eyes of those getting the diagnosis, young dads, moms to the brilliant medical minds working on stopping it.
Produced by an extraordinary woman, Meghan O’Hara, The C Word Movie delves into how the way we live influences the way we die.
If you could change something, would you?
Sit down, hold onto your heart and learn about people that are changing the way that we fight cancer. It’s a game we have to win.
