Robyn O'Brien

About Robyn O'Brien

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.

Posts by Robyn O'Brien:

kashi-trade-show-booth-expo-west-transitional-organic

February 20 2018

Kashi Delivers $1+ Million in Premiums to Support Farmers’ Transition to Organic

Robyn O'Brien From Robyn, Food Financials 0

The last few weeks, I’ve been in meetings with multinational companies who are now responding to the changing needs of American families. They recognize that demand for organic is no longer a fad or a trend and that consumers want transparency and to know what is in their food.

Organic is not a trend, because cancer, food allergies, diabetes, autism and Alzheimer’s aren’t trends. Inside all of these multinational companies are people who have family members and loved ones who are struggling with health issues. They know that the statistics are real.

So the personal is becoming the professional which is becoming political, and as these brands realize that less than 1% of our farmland in the U.S. is certified organic.

But the politics around food aren’t divided along traditional lines. Cancer doesn’t care if we are Republican or Democrat, autism, diabetes and Alzheimer’s don’t either. Health conditions are impacting all of our families, regardless of what side of the aisle we are on. And the line that has divided many companies between conventional and organic is blurring, thank goodness.

Perhaps one of the most remarkable examples of this is what Kashi is doing. They were acquired by Kellogg’s several years ago and largely left alone out in California, where they drove a revenue increase of 42% to $600 million in sales. Disaster only struck Kashi when Kellogg’s tried to re-engineer Kashi’s DNA, relocating the company’s headquarters to Michigan, changing the decision-making process and more. Sales tanked, morale plummeted, and the expression “to get Kashi’d” became something that no company wanted to experience in the acquisition process.

But inside of Kashi was a woman who stayed the course. She arrived in 2002, when the brand was still true to form, and she held onto that DNA despite the efforts to change it. As Kellogg’s realized their mistakes, they sent Kashi back to California.

A few years ago, under the leadership of this woman, the Kashi team contacted me after I’d been making a lot of noise about the fact that so many households are now buying organic, and that in spite of that, less than 1% of all U.S. farm acreage is organic. Those numbers don’t add up for any CEO responding to consumer demand, so the quick solution many companies turned to was importing organic ingredients. This hit me as a lost opportunity for American farmers. Why not grow it here?

So rather than wait for the government or the Grocery Manufacturer’s Association (which was fighting its own consumers in the GMO labeling debate) to do it, Kashi implemented a program to grow more organic in the U.S., to support American farmers in that transition rather than import it.

I’ve been asking the Kashi team for an update for the last few months, as I adore market-led solutions and specifically the fact that theirs enlisted the consumer. Well, the update finally arrived. This hit my inbox this morning:

Kashi unveiled that with the support of consumers, it will source Certified Transitional ingredients from more than 4,200 acres of U.S. farmland – a 400% increase since the Certified Transitional program started in 2016. Participating farmers have received more than $1 million to support their transition from conventional to organic.

“We’re proud to support thousands of acres of U.S. farmland transitioning to organic through the Certified Transitional program since its inception in 2016,” said Nicole Nestojko, Kashi Sr. Director Supply Chain & Sustainability. “When people enjoy a bowl of our new Cinnamon French Toast cereal – or any Certified Transitional product – they are helping increase the amount of organic farmland in the U.S., one box at a time.”

Growing the Organic Market

Despite double-digit growth in consumer demand for organic foods each year since the 1990s, organic acreage has not kept up.[1] According to the USDA, less than one percent of U.S. farmland is certified organic.[2] While farmers increasingly recognize the benefits of certification, converting fields from conventional farming methods to organic takes at least three years and is no small feat. During the three-year transition, farmers use organic practices requiring increased investment but aren’t paid organic prices.

Inspired to help farmers meet rising demand for organics, Kashi partnered with leading organic certifier Quality Assurance International (QAI) in 2016 to create Certified Transitional, a protocol that creates a new way for farmers to command slightly higher prices for their crops in transition during the three-year period – giving them the financial assurance they need to make the switch from conventional to organic. QAI led the development of the label, with support from agricultural suppliers, a global environmental NGO, organic experts, farmers, retailers, distributors and food brands.

QAI owns and manages the Certified Transitional protocol, which is available for any crop and brand that sources agricultural ingredients, including food and beverage.

Certified Transitional Farmers Received $1M in Premiums Made Possible by Kashi

Through the program, Certified Transitional farmers have received more than $1 million in premiums to support their transition to organic since 2016. A total of 15 farmers have supplied Certified Transitional ingredients from farmland in California, Colorado, Louisiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Wyoming.

By purchasing Certified Transitional products such as Cinnamon French Toast cereal, Chewy Nut Butter Bars and Dark Cocoa Karma Shredded Wheat Biscuits, consumers are voting with their dollars to help support farmers transitioning their land to organic.

“I like to consider myself a ‘conductor in an ecological orchestra’ because it’s important to me to ensure that all unique parts of the farm are working together in harmony,” said Eric Thalken, president at Burkey LLC, who supplied corn for the new Cinnamon French Toast Cereal. “That’s why I’m transitioning to organic – to ensure I conduct my farm in the most sustainable tune.”

These are the types of solutions that we can bring to the marketplace in real time, without waiting on the government. They are driving changes for our farmers, creating economic opportunities and jobs, which is a win win for the farm economy and U.S. economy. I sincerely hope that other companies will follow.

The picture above is from LivingMaxwell.com and taken at Expo West 2017. We are looking forward to seeing more solutions from companies on the trade show floor in a few weeks.

February 11 2018

‘Peter Rabbit’ Should be Rated ‘R’ for Reckless

Robyn O'Brien Food Allergies, Food Heroes 0

Sony Picture’s Peter Rabbit has garnered a lot of headlines since its release. But we haven’t yet heard from the children that the allergy bullying scenes impact. That is until now. Please meet 9 year old, Anna Coleman from Colorado Springs. She shares her take on the film and what families and film companies need to do next. We have left this completely unedited, in her own words.

Anna Coleman, 9 – The movie Peter Rabbit is now playing at theaters. I was really excited to see it, but now I’m mad. In it, food allergies are shown as a way to hurt others and joked about as being not a big deal. Peter Rabbit is rated PG, but it should be rated R for reckless.

I was diagnosed with a life-threatening peanut allergy when I was two years old. I just turned nine. I’ve had other food allergies over the years come and go, like lemon, that was a weird one, but the peanut one is never going away. I’ve passed the age for growing out of it, and my IGE keeps going up.

Kids with food allergies have lots of anxiety and stress. We are always worried about if our food is allergen free, and where our allergen could be hiding. When people say my allergy is not a big deal, like Peter does in the movie, I don’t feel safe. When my friends tell me they have peanuts in their lunches and laugh, I don’t feel safe. Even our “safe” adults like teachers and family don’t always keep us safe and make mistakes. The bullies might see this movie and get ideas too.

To help distract me from my anxieties, I like to watch movies and shows. I don’t want to go see a movie and feel these feelings I feel most days. I want to get away from them! I’m speaking my heart here, and my heart says that this is wrong. Allergy kids have enough to deal with. We shouldn’t be fighting for adults to understand how wrong this is too. If you have allergies you’ll understand.

Sony Pictures should get rid of the scene where Peter Rabbit mocks the character’s food allergy and the scene when Peter and his friends cause him to have an allergic reaction to try to kill him. I want to be able to see the movie without being scared. No one, not grownups, kids or rabbits should mock each other for our differences. I try my best to be a kind and happy kid. The movie producers should try their best to be kind too.

You may think you’re good people, no one said you weren’t, but when you help other good people that makes you a really, really good person.

Please take the allergy scenes out of the movie. I may only be nine years old, and may not be tall or strong, but my voice speaks louder than any actions or inactions you take. Some adults that are way older than me haven’t even felt what I have felt. Having to be worried that you’re going to get hurt or die if you eat something wrong. I just want to have a great life as long as I can, and not get killed from peanuts. It’s a serious thing, and Sony Pictures should not joke about it. They need to think about how they’d feel if they had an allergy that was life-threatening. It shouldn’t be hard for the movie creators to see how helping, not making our lives harder, is the best thing to do here.

I want to challenge other kids with allergies to rise up and make their voices heard about this. I thought that I couldn’t do anything until I saw my older sister speak out for what she believes in. When you’re scared, but you speak up anyway, it makes you feel like you can do anything. Kids make a difference every day to create change in our world. They do! And so can you! This affects us, our families and our friends, so why can’t we try to do something about it?

If you do speak up, please use #KidsMadAtPeterRabbit. Believe in yourself, because I believe in you.

Anna Coleman, age 9

Colorado Springs, CO

January 21 2018

Organic Food: Why the Price Tag & Is It Worth It?

Robyn O'Brien Food Financials, Real Food 0

Organic food is the fastest growing part of the food industry. It seems like everyone is now getting in on it.

So what, exactly, does the term “organic” actually mean?

The term “organic” actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed and legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.

The details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production, which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:

antibiotics
artificial growth hormones
high fructose corn syrup
artificial dyes (made from coal tar and petrochemicals)
artificial sweeteners derived from chemicals
synthetically created chemical pesticide and fertilizers
genetically engineered proteins and ingredients
sewage sludge
irradiation

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, these added ingredients are actually what differentiate organic foods from their conventional counterparts. A Stanford study a few years ago concluded that there is little difference between organic and conventional food. But nowhere in that Stanford study, comparing organic food to conventional, were ingredients like synthetic pesticide, sewage sludge or any of the above measured. There was no measure of the insecticidal toxins produced by a genetically engineered corn plant, no measure of the added growth hormones used in conventional dairy, no measure of the fact that 80 percent of the antibiotics used today are used on the chicken, pork, beef and animals that we eat.

Food is not just a delivery device for vitamins and minerals, as measured in the study, but it is also used as a delivery device for these substances that drive profitability for the food industry. To fail to measure these added ingredients, while suggesting that there is essentially no difference, is incomplete at best. Some might even go so far as to suggest that it is irresponsible in light of the fact that we are seeing such a dramatic increase in diet-related disease.

Additionally, anyone who knowingly sells or mislabels as organic a product that was not produced and handled in accordance with the regulations can be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation. In other words, if an organic producer were to add any one of the ingredients listed above, they would be fined.

WHY ORGANICS COST MORE

Admittedly, the high price of organic food can irritate anyone. But the scrutiny that these foods undergo is enormous and expensive, driving prices at the cash register and for those producing them on the farm. Why the costs? Because the cost structure on our food supply offers taxpayer-funded resources called subsidies to the farmers using genetically engineered seeds and saturating crops in insecticides and weed killers, while charging the organic farmers fees to prove that their crops are safe.

That’s like getting fined to wear your seat belt.

So while conventional food production allows for the addition of cheap, synthetic and often controversial ingredients that have been disallowed, banned or never permitted for use in developed countries around the world, organic food carries the burden of having to prove that its products are safe—products produced without the use of added non-food ingredients that other countries have found controversial or removed from their food supply.

In other words, it’s an un-level playing field right now. And if we were all sitting down as a national family at our national dinner table, I don’t think that any of us would want to be using our resources this way. Wouldn’t we rather have the organic food be the one that we fund, making it cheaper, more affordable and more accessible to all Americans?

Or if given the choice, would we rather eat food hopped up on growth hormones, antibiotics and chemical pesticides? That’s a personal decision, a personal responsibility. We have to know what is in our food to make that decision.

And while correlation is not causation, in light of the growing rates of cancer, diabetes and other conditions affecting our families, the answer would appear to be “eat less chemicals.”

Food, clean from antibiotics, added growth hormones and excessive pesticide residue, should be a basic human right, afforded to all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status.

But right now, the majority of the population does not have that choice. Food, clean from antibiotics, added growth hormones and excessive pesticide residue, should be a basic human right, afforded to all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status.

The authors of the Stanford study concluded that the studies reviewed do not support what they call the “widespread perception” that organic foods overall are nutritionally superior to conventional ones, although eating an organic diet may reduce exposures to pesticides and antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

A Stanford press release quoted senior author Dena Bravata as saying, “There isn’t much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you’re an adult and making a decision based solely on your health.” (According to the Stanford Medical Center press office, Bravata is no longer doing interviews about the study.)

In one key finding, the team reported a “risk difference” of 30% between conventional and organic produce, meaning organic produce had a 30% lower risk of pesticide contamination than conventional produce. That number was based on the difference between the percentages of conventional and organic food samples across studies with any detectible pesticide residues (38% and 7%, respectively).

But the concept of risk difference is potentially misleading in this context, as the metric does not refer to health risk, according to Charles Benbrook, research professor and program leader for Measure to Manage: Farm and Food Diagnostics for Sustainability and Health at Washington State University. Furthermore, says Benbrook, “Pesticide dietary risk is a function of many factors, including the number of residues, their levels, and pesticide toxicity,” not just whether contamination was present.

Which is exactly what the video out of Sweden brought to light yesterday.

In a letter accepted for publication in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Benbrook pointed to the Stanford team’s lack of consideration of extensive government data on the number, frequency, potential combinations, and associated health risks of pesticide residues in U.S. food. Using data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program,4Benbrook calculated a 94% reduction in health risk attributable to eating organic forms of six pesticide-intensive fruits.

The Stanford researchers also missed opportunities to examine the relationship of pesticides and health outcomes demonstrated in a growing number of cohort studies, says Brenda Eskenazi, a professor in the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. Eskenazi conducted one such study, one of a trio published in April 2011 that examined the relationship between cognitive development and prenatal pesticide exposures in two multiethnic inner-city populations6,7 and one farmworker community in California. One of the studies found deficits of seven IQ points in 7-year-old children in the highest quintile of pesticide exposure, compared with children in the lowest quintile, as measured by maternal urinary pesticide metabolite levels during pregnancy. Results were comparable in the other two studies.

In concluding that the evidence “does not suggest marked health benefits from consuming organic versus conventional foods,” many commenters, including Eskenazi and Benbrook, felt the Stanford team ignored risks to broader public health like those outlined in an April 2012 review by David C. Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School. In his review Bellinger argued that subtle impacts of organophosphate pesticides on neurodevelopment can add up to substantial population-level impacts. He wrote, “It is frequently noted that a modest downward shift in mean IQ scores will be accompanied by a substantial increase in the percentage of individuals with extremely low scores.”

Conventional toxicology testing is now being shown to miss responses that occur at doses that are orders of magnitude lower than previously established no-observed-adverse-effects levels, with potential implications for our understanding of pesticide safety. And others are finding in animal studies that pesticide exposures in utero can induce epigenetic changes that alter stress responses and disease rates in future generations.

What are all of these pesticides in combination doing to us, to our families, to our children or during our pregnancy? The fact is: we need more scientific studies, and the video shared yesterday, like the Stanford study from a few years ago, speaks to that and opens the dialogue.

SO WHERE TO START?

Since the high price of organic produce and a flawed food system that continues to charge organic farmers more to prove that their products, produced without ingredients that mounting scientific evidence has shown to cause harm, is still an insurmountable hurdle to the majority of the population, especially the growing number of unemployed, where can an American who wants to avoid these ingredients start?

Start with baby steps. None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something. And thankfully, foods without these controversial additives and ingredients are increasingly sold in grocery stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, Kroger and Safeway, which represent the largest single distribution channel, accounting for 38 percent of organic food sales in 2006. Look for milk labeled “RbGH-free” or look for products without high fructose corn syrup or artificial colors. A growing number of companies, from Kraft to Nestle, are producing them, because their employees have kids battling conditions like asthma, allergies, diabetes and cancer, too.

So maybe you rolled your eyes at this whole thing a few years ago, dismissing it as an expensive food fad. I did. The Stanford study goes a long way towards reinforcing that. But read between the lines and exercise precaution where you can. Let your local representatives know that this matters to you, that you believe organic food should be the affordable option to families. Let your local grocery store know that you hope to see more in their aisles. They are listening, they are learning all of this, too. They have family members struggling under the burden of disease.

The love that you have for your family and country can propel you to do things you could never imagine. So navigate the grocery store a bit differently, get involved with a food kitchen, a community garden, a child’s school. And reach out to your legislators. They have families, too.

Because as the science continues to mount, from the Presidents Cancer Panel to the American Academy of Pediatrics, we are learning just how much the food we eat– and the artificial ingredients being added to it—can affect the health of our loved ones. So ask why. In light of the escalating rates of conditions and diseases in our country and around the world, it is one of the most patriotic things that we can do.

Sources:

Organic Food Conclusions Don’t Tell the Whole Story: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/120-a458/

Benbrook C. Initial Reflections on the Annals of Internal Medicine Paper “Are Organic Foods Safer and Healthier than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review.” Available: http://caff.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Annals_Response_Final.pdf

Bouchard MF, et al. Prenatal exposure to organophosphate pesticides and IQ in 7-year-old children. Environ Health Perspect 119(8):1189–1195 (2011); http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003185.

Engel SM, et al. Prenatal exposure to organophosphates, paraoxonase 1, and cognitive development in childhood. Environ Health Perspect 119(8):1182–1188 (2011); http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003183.

Rauh V, et al. Seven-year neurodevelopmental scores and prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos, a common agricultural pesticide. Environ Health Perspect 119(8):1196–1201 (2011); http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1003160.

January 9 2018

As the Grocery Manufacturers’ Association Era Ends, A Look at What Must Come Next

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, From Robyn, Health 0

In 2014, I wrote an article questioning the lack of vision and leadership at the Grocery Manufacturers Association. “Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association a Relic?” I asked. Some CEOs were shocked by the audacity of that question. To me, it was so obvious that the organization was failing its members by not addressing the changing needs of consumers or the changing needs in the supply chain for its member companies. It was stunning to me that no one had asked questioned them.

In July of last year, Campbell’s announced that they are withdrawing from the trade group due to “purpose and principles.” They were no longer aligned.

Then Nestle announced their decision to split with the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Dean Foods and Tyson have since joined, as the GMA finds itself slowly disintegrating—its shelf life far shorter than that of the Twinkies it once represented.

So what comes next?

In the last few years, a growing number of companies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have announced that they are not only dumping artificial ingredients from their products but also buying into the free-from and organic movements. It is a growing trend in the face of consumer demand.

#dumpthejunk has become the rallying cry, as a growing number of consumers call on companies to remove artificial ingredients, as we find ourselves reading labels because of diabetes, food allergies, ADHD and so much more.

So why is this happening on a one-off basis? Why didn’t the Grocery Manufacturers Association give its members the heads up? Why are these companies slowly peeling off these ingredients one by one in a slow and often reactionary process? It’s death by a thousand cuts.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is the voice of more than 300 leading food, beverage and consumer product companies, but will it be a relic of the 20^th century? With Campbell’s announcement yesterday, the answer is “yes.”

A question that is starting to pop up is: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association still delivering value to its members? Would members be better served by forming a new organization? What if a new group started? Let’s just hypothetically call it the Food Production Association, and its mission was to meet the needs of companies in the 21^st century?

A look back at the history of the Grocery Manufacturers Association suggests this might be a good idea.

Founded in 1908, the Grocery Manufacturers Association is a self-described, active, vocal advocate for its member companies and a trusted source of information about the industry and the products consumers rely on.

But do 21st century consumers actually turn to this organization today or is it a relic of the 20th century? And is it an advocate for its members?

The organization’s website goes on to say:

“A vital role of GMA is to serve as a central resource for our members, providing industry model practices and a means for collaboration between members, retailers and service providers on important challenges and opportunities facing the industry.”

The organization may have done that twenty years ago, but is it still doing that today?

The landscape of health has changed, and it is changing the landscape of food. Today, the rates of diabetes is skyrocketing, 1 in 4 children has a chronic condition, 1 in 13 children has a food allergy, 1 in 10 has asthma and 1 in 68 has autism, with cancer now the leading cause of death by disease in American children. The rates of these conditions are escalating, and parents are reading labels.

Did any of us expect motherhood or fatherhood to look like this? Not at all. No one would choose autism, life threatening food allergies or cancer. No one. But we find ourselves face to face with these conditions every day. It is changing so many things in our lives, and it is changing how we approach the grocery store.

Some companies want to spend millions of dollars debating how we got here. Parents don’t have time. Their hands are tied managing these health conditions. CNN/TIME reported that the additional costs of raising a child with food allergies is $4,200/year. Consumers want transparency and denying them basic information about what is in the food we are feeding our loved ones is out of touch.

Over the last year, more than 60 state laws have been introduced to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods. Consumers know about it, companies know about it. Companies inside the Grocery Manufacturers Association are producing product lines without these ingredients, and those product lines are profitable pieces of their portfolio. One look at the success of Kroger’s Simple Truth, “free-from” line demonstrates what a brand can do when it removes additives, GMOs, high fructose corn syrup and more.

Consumers want “free-from” food. It’s not about debating the “how” or the “why” we got here. It’s about meeting her where she stands in the aisle of the grocery store, holding onto a child with diabetes or food allergies, or shopping for parent with cancer.

Everyone is recognizing the need for food free from artificial ingredients. Panera Bread recently announced that they are pulling these ingredients from their products, Target’s Simply Balanced committed to removing genetically engineered ingredients by the end of 2014, and Kroger is seeing record earnings growth with its Simple Truth product line, free from artificial ingredients and genetically engineered ingredients. The brand went from $0 to $1 billion in revenue in two years. The CEO of Kroger has repeatedly called it “a bright spot” in the company’s earnings reports.

So if companies that are dumping the junk are being rewarded by both consumers and the stock market, shareholders and stakeholders, what purpose does the Grocery Manufacturers Association serve by getting in the way of that? Is that in the best interest of its members?

As the Association spends record amounts filing lawsuits against the state of Vermont which has just taken a big step towards bringing transparency to its food system for its consumers, you have to wonder if this is money well spent for its members. What if instead, these members decided to leave the organization and start another one, one that truly met their needs in the face of changing consumer demand and the changing health of American consumers. Or what if some got aggressive and filed a “loss of business” lawsuit against it given the decline that companies like Kellogg’s are seeing in sales and the resulting employee layoffs as they entrench on the GMO labeling issue?

21st century families want free-from food. It isn’t complicated, and shareholders and stakeholders are rewarding the companies that understand that and are delivering products that meet that need.

They’re not debating the science, they’re not filing lawsuits, they are simply meeting us where we stand: in the aisles of the grocery store shopping for the 1 in 3 American children that now has allergies, asthma, ADHD or autism. They are building a new food economy, becoming icons for the 21st century consumer, making the Grocery Manufacturers Association look like a relic of the 20th century.

The $2.1 trillion food, beverage and consumer packaged goods industry employs 14 million U.S. workers. As consumers opt out of food loaded with artificial ingredients, demand is growing. From 2013-2018, demand for organic is expected to grow 14%, but in the United States, less than 1% of farmland is under organic farm management which means that we have to turn to countries like China and Romania for non-GMO or organic food. We are literally outsourcing that entire economic opportunity. It is not in the interest of our food companies, our families or our farmers.

If the Grocery Manufacturers Association was true to its mission it would meet the 21st century consumer where she stands, and it would be addressing this supply chain issue for its members. But it’s not.

As it stands, it is quickly becoming a relic of the 20th century, opening the door for another industry organization to form.

Can you imagine if Kroger, Target, Campbell’s, Nature’s Path, Annie’s, Costco and other food companies joined together to form the Food Production Association whose mission was to build out a clean and safe food system and to secure the supply chain for 21st century families? Instead of channeling member dollars into lawsuits, it could grow the base of US farmland under organic management, so that we don’t outsource this economic opportunity for our companies, farmers and country to our trading partners.

Cancer, autism, food allergies and other conditions we are seeing in the health of our loved ones are not “trends,” neither is the demand for transparency. American consumers have a right to know whether the EPA regulates their corn as a pesticide or not. Sixty percent of the world’s population has been given that right.

Imagine an organization for the food industry that actually focused on securing a non GMO supply chain for American companies, rather than fight this shift in consumer demand and outsource this economic opportunity to China and Romania. Here’s what a logo might look like. It’s food for thought.

January 9 2018

1+8 Ideas for 2018

Robyn O'Brien From Robyn, Health 1

Waiting for one year to end and another to start is how a lot of people are feeling right now. But that is tempting fate.

You can line up a list of the things that went wrong in 2017 and come to the conclusion that life couldn’t get much worse.

If you think just a little bit, you will remember those you lost this year: the people you love who also lost people they love, the friends who have seen friends die, the sisters who lost brothers, daughters who lost fathers. Lives ended, as every year does.

But here we are writing this, so in the words of Mary Oliver, “Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?”

For some reason, new year’s resolutions tend to center around weight loss. I hate that. Too many of us once let a scale dictate whether or not we were going to have a good day or a bad one. One number defined a mood, and it is a complete waste of energy. Instead of focusing on what you can lose, focus on what you can gain—like a day spent doing something you love with someone you love, a day not ruined by a number.

So rather than focus on the things to steer clear of in 2018, here are a few things to add, 1+8 things, so here you go:

Water. Can not emphasize this enough. It impacts everything from your mood, to concentration, to digestion to how your skin looks. Hydrate. It will do more for you than you could ever imagine.
Move. I don’t care if it’s dancing in the kitchen with your kids, walking a dog, doing the plank for 45 seconds, move that body you have. A friend lost his legs in a freak accident. Live everyday on yours while you can. None of us know what is coming at us.
Hand write notes. In 2017, I committed to hand writing a thank you note each week to a person who impacted my life, a teacher, a friend, a mentor or just someone who made my heart expand. The joy that came from writing those notes, the appreciation, boomeranged. The receivers would reach out (who mails hand written notes anymore?). It is an awesome practice to start.
Unplug. In this hyper speed, 24/7 news cycle with social media hacking at our brains, find a few minutes each day to unplug. Maybe walk without the device (radical!) or take a class that doesn’t allow them (pretty much, all classes!) and just try to exist without the added techno limb.
Supplement. Sadly, our soil sucks. It’s in terrible shape. As a country, we decided to maximize yields at all costs, which means we soaked our soil in pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, so many sides that it is no longer healthy. Not an insurmountable problem, but as we work on regenerative ag, supplement. My partners have some of my favorites: MegaFood Daily Turmeric Boost, Natural Vitality CALM Magnesium and My Kind Vitamin C, Bs and more. Consider adding supplements to your daily routine until we turn around this chemically intensive ag system.
Call someone you love. A lot of friends have lost family members and friends in the last year, so pick up the phone and call someone you love. Start the convo with, “I only have a few minutes, but wanted to check in and say hi…” It doesn’t have to be an hour or even a half an hour. Pick up the phone and let someone you love hear your voice and listen to theirs. Time is fleeting.
Schedule your checkups, and do not forget the dermatologist. This year has been my year of reckoning after growing up in the sun and on beaches. Get into the dermatologist. It’s fast, painless, and a few stern words now can save you from stitches or surgery later.
Plant something. Start with a tomato plant or basil plant or anything simple in a pot. Learn how to grow something, the patience and skills will serve you in so many aspects of life.
Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. All too often, we wait for the perfect weight or time or confidence level or moment to let someone we love know that we love them. Don’t wait. Now more than ever, the most important thing that we can put into the world is love. So do your thing. Love big.

If 2017 is any indicator, 2018 is going to be crazy, too. You have to put on your oxygen mask first before you can effectively help others. So buckle up and take care of you, in order to take care of those and all that you love. The world needs you in it.

January 9 2018

Something Smells Rotten in the Peanut Problem

Robyn O'Brien From Robyn, Food Allergies, Health 0

So I watched Part 2 of Rotten about food allergies. And I have some questions. So I’ve put them into the production team and am waiting to hear back.

I adore Ming Tsai, truly love that man. I was just with him in his restaurant, Blue Dragon, in the fall. If you are ever in Boston, please eat there. And I bow down to the families who came forward for the film. That half of the segment is incredible.

But boy, does the other half come across as a pitch for peanut farmers, and I have serious questions as to the funding and a BIG ASK.

Why no allergist? No allergist interviewed in the section? Why no discussion about the ways that the farmers farm? No discussion. None. It’s a pity party there. And that is a peanut problem.

The film paints a very clean picture of peanut farming, with beautiful green fields, and a dad and daughter. I mean, let’s pull those heart strings for these two. And as someone who is named after a farmer, I bow to the farming efforts.

But to fail to highlight exactly how peanut farming happens? The record amount of pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other methods used to grow those products? The crop rotation that can occur with genetically engineered cotton? One of the most highly polluted crops? To not bring that discussion into the microbiome discussion is irresponsible.

Most of the peanuts consumed in the U.S. are now one of the most pesticide-contaminated snacks we eat. The USDA Pesticide Data Program found 8 pesticides on peanut butter. Piperonyl butoxide was found 26.9% of the time.

According to the National Pesticide Information Center, piperonyl butoxide is considered a possible human carcinogen based on limited evidence of cancer in laboratory animals. Piperonyl Butoxide (PBO), a highly toxic substance that causes a range of short- and long-term effects, including cancer and adverse impacts on liver function and the nervous system, is one of the most commonly used synergists in pesticide products. Synergists are chemicals added to pesticide formulations to enhance the toxicity of the active ingredients.

According to farmers, “Peanuts are raised in the part of our country where peanuts are a rotation crop with cotton. Most of the cotton is glyphosate tolerant and receives numerous glyphosate applications per year. Glyphosate severely damages the beneficial microorganisms in the soil. This leads to an increase in the population of opportunistic or bad organisms in the soil. The bad organisms cause an increase in the number of diseases that will adversely effect the peanut crop. This leads to an increased use of insecticides and fungicides on the peanut crop. It is common to see a conventional peanut crop sprayed with some type of pesticide every 8-10 days during the growing season.”

It is also incredibly irresponsible to solely focus on peanut here when the number of deaths due to milk allergy are exploding. It has me wondering if perhaps the dairy industry is going to fund the next food allergy film with idyllic pastures of cows rather than the CAFO’s that are now part of industrialized dairy?

Are we allergic to food or to what’s been done to do?

And when a doctor is paid mightily by Mylan and fails to disclose those payments prompts parents to reach out, it leads to some big questions?

So that is my peanut problem.

What money was behind this film? Still waiting to hear back.

It’s easy to be misled in this space. Many of us entered into it optimistically, only to realize just how much money is flowing through non-profits and doctors’ offices, without full disclosure. When critical conversations are muted, it’s important to remember what Enron once reminded us to do, “Ask why.”

December 31 2017

Overcoming Glyphosate in 2017

Robyn O'Brien Health, Food Politics 0

There have been some massive changes in 2017 and a lot of upheaval. One of the most important being the conversation around glyphosate. The European Union recently voted on the use of this controversial ingredient, and the president of France took to Twitter to express his opinion: he wants this pesticide prohibited in France within three years which is why I am so grateful for brands like MegaFood® who have gone to extra lengths to ensure that their products do not contain it.

So what’s the issue? Glyphosate has been the go-to weed killer for use on genetically engineered, or GMO, crops since the mid-1990s.

Consequently, “Human exposure to glyphosate, a chemical widely found in weed killers, has increased approximately 500 percent since the introduction of genetically modified crops,” according to a report from the University of California San Diego Health.

And consumers and government agencies around the world are starting to question it, ever since the World Health Organization declared it a probable carcinogen in 2015.

So, consumers have sent a strong response to this: 8 in 10 households in the U.S. now purchase some organic food (because by law, glyphosate is not allowed to be used on organic crops). But to take this quality assurance a step further, one of my favorite brands has gone even further.

MegaFood is dedicated to improving the lives of others by producing premium whole food supplements for those who care about their health and well-being. It’s a product I have used for years, since first meeting the CEO at a summit for the industry. He could not have been more candid and committed.

And MegaFood reflects that. The company is so committed to quality, safety and purity above all, to provide customers with the most authentic nourishment possible that they are the first supplement brand to have its entire line certified Glyphosate Residue Free by The Detox Project, an independent research and certification organization dedicated to bringing awareness to the public by testing consumer goods and food products for toxic chemicals.

It is because of all of this that I have decided to partner with them to get this news out. I cannot think of anything more important. On top of that, it is a brand that I have used for years, I travel with it, and it literally starts my mornings.

Earning this certification is just one part of MegaFood’s continued commitment toward The Big T Transparency, which is a complete operational transparency between MegaFood employees, suppliers, retailers and customers, as well as its commitment to quality, safety and purity.

It’s a big deal. Glyphosate is the number one herbicide used in the United States, and the World Health Organization (WHO) has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Nearly 75% of all glyphosate was sprayed in the last ten years.

I am really grateful for full transparency on this, for the freedom to opt out of this controversial ingredient. It may take decades for all of the information to come to light. It did with the tobacco industry. In the meantime, I am grateful to know that MegaFood’s Daily Turmeric Booster Powder, one of my favorite products and something that I take every day, is now independently tested to ensure that it does not contain this controversial ingredient.

We have a lot on our plates as moms and as parents. In light of the growing controversy around this ingredient, I don’t think glyphosate should be one of them.

December 29 2017

Got Stress? Meet the Magic Mineral Magnesium

Robyn O'Brien Health, From Robyn 0

Life can get absolutely crazy, especially if you have kids. On top of that, it’s the holiday season and the daily headlines may have you asking what is happening to our world!

The ninja skills required to coordinate the moving parts of a house full of kids, a spouse, a career, some advocacy work and keeping up with the headlines require an incredible focus. On top of that, if you are a parent, you know that you can not afford to get sick.

I didn’t always operate this way. I lived on diet soda and fat-free food (if you can call it that) for years. I had a tendency to run hard, play hard and drive myself straight into the ground. I’d crash. Total wipe out.

And then when the health of my kids were hit with different health conditions, conditions now impacting so many children today, I had to reassess. I had to keep my family healthy, and I could not afford to go down.

My background is finance and motherhood. I was a straight A, MBA number cruncher. I knew nothing about food and began reaching out to doctors, pediatricians and dietitians to learn.

There have been a lot of things that have surprised me along the way, but I think one of the most surprising things continues to be that some of the easiest solutions are right in front of us. Things like reducing exposure to pesticides, artificial dyes, GMOs, since we don’t know the long-term impact.

But one day, sitting in the pediatrician’s office, he asked, “Do you guys take magnesium?” We were there because one of the kids was dealing with a bullying situation at school, and the stress was high.

“No, why?” And he started listing the benefits and the fact that 80% of Americans could be deficient.

“How did this happen?” I asked, thinking about my 104 year old grandmother. He wasn’t sure, so I got digging into the research.

It turns out that current industrial agricultural methods take from the soil more than they give.

It turns out that current industrial agricultural methods take from the soil more than they give. Monoculture (growing the same crop year in and year out, which depletes the soil of nutrients), synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and aggressive tilling further deplete minerals and trace elements from the soil and leave it vulnerable to erosion. This means much of the produce that we eat today has fewer nutrients than before these methods were utilized. In other words, this new way of farming stripped our soil. The word is “chelation”. And chemicals like glyphosate strip away key things like copper, zinc and magnesium. No one knows this better than Dr. Don Huber, a professor emeritus and retired military colonel who bravely spoke out on this.

As I dug into the research, I learned that a carrot you eat today can have 10 to 25 percent fewer vitamins and minerals than a carrot did twenty-five years ago.

And magnesium is one of those minerals that has been depleted. And it’s an important one.

True to form, I thought, “If magnesium can truly do all of this, why isn’t everyone talking about this? And how have I never heard of it?”

Because unfortunately, not enough docs get enough nutrition and this training (launching the industry for registered dietitians).

And here’s what I learned.

Every day, hundreds of complex chemical reactions occur in your body—and helping to regulate more than 350 of them is the hardworking mineral Magnesium.

Most of us are woefully deficient in this powerhouse of a mineral. Some doctors estimate that 80% of Americans aren’t getting enough magnesium. According to the National Institute of Health, an adult body contains approximately 25 g magnesium, with 50% to 60% present in the bones and most of the rest in soft tissues.

According to Dr. Frank Lipman, “Every day, hundreds of complex chemical reactions occur in your body—and helping to regulate more than 350 of them is the hardworking mineral Magnesium. Keep magnesium levels high and you’ll help protect your body against heart disease, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, type-2 diabetes, migraines, insomnia and depression.”

Shoot! Who wouldn’t want that?

So where to find this magic mineral and which company makes one of the greatest? (Take a peak here!)

Read on to Part 2.

December 18 2017

The Roundup Revenue Stream: 2.6 Billion Pounds of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Sprayed on U.S. Farmland in 20 Years

Robyn O'Brien GMOs, Health 1

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Glyphosate has been the go-to weed killer for use on genetically engineered, or GMO, crops since the mid-1990s, when Monsanto introduced its “Roundup Ready” corn and soybeans.

“Human exposure to glyphosate, a chemical widely found in weed killers, has increased approximately 500 percent since the introduction of genetically modified crops,” according to a new report from the University of California San Diego Health.

Monsanto’s signature herbicide glyphosate, first marketed as “Roundup,” is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture in both the U.S. and globally, according to a landmark report published in the journal, Environmental Sciences Europe.

Since 1974 in the U.S., over three billion, five hundred twenty million pounds of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied. Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996. It’s a brilliant business model for the chemical company – genetically engineer seeds to withstand increased applications of your signature weed killer.

Headlines around the world are sounding the alarm. In Europe, one recently read, ” A release of internal emails has revealed that U.S. agrochemical giant Monsanto manipulated studies of the company’s herbicide, Roundup. Experts believe the product causes cancer – and the consequences for the company could be dire.”

As Bayer cut Monsanto’s deal value by $2.5 billion, this is worth another investigation.

See below to watch a time-lapse video of the spread of glyphosate across America over the 20-year period. Nearly 75% of all glyphosate was sprayed in the last ten years. (More data here.)[/vc_column_text][vc_column_text]

Recent research has found that exposure to glyphosate doubles the risk of developing cancer. Since the use of the herbicide on GMO crops has exploded in recent years, it’s no wonder people overwhelmingly want GMO-containing food products to be labeled.

Here are the states that spray the most glyphosate year by year:

topten_750 — Photo credit: USGS, Pesticide National Synthesis Project

Glyphosate primarily blankets fields of GMO corn and GMO soybeans—the two most widely planted crops in the U.S. This table shows how many acres of these herbicide-tolerant GMOs were grown in 2014 in the states that produced the most.

no matter where you live, you should have the right to know if the food your family is eating was produced with GMOs. While 60% of the world’s population have that right already, Americans do not.

Tell Washington that it’s time to stand with the 90 percent of Americans who want mandatory GMO labeling so that we can know that this is being sprayed on our dinner plates.

Originally published at EcoWatch.

Photo by timparkinson [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

December 14 2017

Information Discrimination: The Critical Importance of Net Neutrality

Robyn O'Brien From Robyn 0

Today, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to revoke net neutrality. What exactly is that? It’s freedom to decide what you see on the internet, without having to pay for basic or premium packaging. Net neutrality basically means that your internet service provider doesn’t filter the content flow of what you see online.

But the FCC voted against net neutrality, giving service providers the option to offer up the Internet’s very own EZ Pass lanes. You pay more, you get faster access. It’s a bad idea, as it can cripple freedom of information, entrepreneurship, connectivity and so much more.

As might be expected, net neutrality is a liberty that Americans and people around the world hold dear. Recent polls show that 80% of us want net neutrality and do not want it repealed.To take away that liberty strikes most as un-American.

According to AdWeek, “Without net neutrality, service providers like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T could either block certain websites or charge consumers to access content, granting companies the ability to basically outbid each other for access to the internet. By nixing the net neutrality rules, the FCC will no longer police high-speed internet delivery like a utility. Instead, these service providers can create “fast lanes” for companies that pay money to deliver content faster.”

Companies and consumers rose up to protest today’s FCC decision. The United States until today stood with Canada, South America and Europe—true to net neutrality. But with the FCC vote today, we have been placed in a category with Russia and China.

To see what countries have net neutrality and which don’t, the Global Net Neutrality Coalition has a map here.

The blowback across social media was fierce.

80% of Americans are against this decision by the FCC. That’s a massive percentage of us united on something during such a politically divisive time.

This isn’t only about #NetNeutrality. This is about democracy. When 80% of Americans don’t want something, and the government does it anyway, that is a direct violation of the will of the people. It erodes faith in government as an institution worth engaging in or even defending.

— Scott Santens (@scottsantens) December 14, 2017

And yes, the internet brings us trolls, bullying and defamatory behavior that is abusive.

But it also brings us information that advertising-backed programming on mainstream media doesn’t. Access to more information.

And this is personal to me, as my TEDx talk has been translated into dozens of languages, reaching families around the world, families battling cancer, severe food allergies, farmers coping with massive financial stress as Monsanto’s operating system takes over. We’ve used the internet to campaign on so many issues close to our hearts.

Freedom should not be silenced or bundled into pay per view and premium packages.

So, once again, rise up. Contact your Senators and Congressmen. Before this can be adopted, it first has to appear in the Federal Register.

The risk is that information is broken up into content packages that we have to pay for like cable: basic to premium.

Let your reps know that you have to #DoSomething to save #NetNeutrality. Let them know that recent polls show that 80% of us want net neutrality and do not want it repealed. That’s incredible bipartisan support.

Now let’s act on it.

Contact Your Member of Congress Here.