Food Politics

August 21 2015

How Monsanto Took Over Our Food System—A Graphical History

When you think about the incredible demand for organic food, it’s pretty amazing that it stood a chance of happening. Right now, less than 1% of U.S. farmland is dedicated to organic agriculture. Demand for organic food is exploding at 11-12% each year. The industry is on fire with startups, venture capital money and mega food companies gobbling up little organic ones. Every one is hungry for organic, except for a handful of companies.

One of those companies is Monsanto. Founded over 100 years ago, they came up with the brilliant idea of genetically engineering seeds so that they could withstand increased applications of their chemicals, mainly Roundup. Beginning in the 1990s, Monsanto introduced a new product: Roundup Ready seeds, specially designed and genetically engineered for Roundup. They patented the invention, tried pushing it on the rest of the world, but the world pushed back, either banning these new products or labeling them.

In the U.S., however, it was a different story. In the last twenty years, this company has taken over our food supply without many of us even realizing it. Here’s how it happened.

So what can we do about it? Speak up, share this post with your friends, family.

Why? We are told to not keep Roundup under our kitchen sinks, to keep it out of our kids’ way.

In light of this product recently being declared a “probable carcinogen” by the World Health Organization, shouldn’t we be doing the same with our food?

Together, we can take back control of our food supply. Farmers are listening. They see the shortcomings in this chemically-intensive operating system with super weeds appearing around the country. The big food companies are listening–they are gobbling up organic companies and have a choice: break up with chemical companies or break up with the consumer.

With food company earnings and our health on the line, it’s time to take control of our food supply again. It’s time for a new food economy and a smarter operating system.

Monsanto's History

How Monsanto Took Control of Our Food

From its early 20th century origins selling a suspect sweetener, Monsanto has long had its hand in our food supply. And that isn’t necessarily a good thing. Let’s take a look at the company’s history and its current practices.

Monsanto and GMOs

Monsanto is a self-proclaimed leader in genetic engineering of food crops. That’s not something to be proud of.

GMOs have been linked preliminarily to:

Food allergies
Increased toxicity
Decreased nutritional value
Antibiotic resistance

A History Lesson

1901

John Francis Queeny founds Monsanto, giving the company his wife’s maiden name. Queeny, a purchaser for a wholesale drug house, forms his St. Louis-based company in order to begin production of saccharin, an artificial sweetener developed in the latter part of the 19th century.

1905

The company begins producing caffeine and vanilla.

1915

Monsanto’s sales surpass $1 million for the first time.

1920s

The company expands to industrial chemicals and drugs and introduces now-banned polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).

1930s

Monsanto creates its first hybrid seed corn and expands production of cleaners and synthetic rubbers and plastics.

1936

Monsanto acquires Ohio-based Thomas & Hochwalt Laboratories, a connection that later helps the U.S. develop the atomic bomb.

1940s

The company begins producing polysterene, the main component in Styrofoam.

1945

Monsanto begins production of agricultural chemicals, such as 2,4-D , later used to make Agent Orange, and DDT.

1956

Navy tests determine that the hydraulic fluid the company is trying to sell to the military is associated with liver damage in humans.

1972

Monsanto halts production of saccharin.

1976

The company introduces synthetic chemical herbicide Roundup.

Congress bans production of PCBs after they were found to cause cancer, including damage to the liver, immune system, reproductive system, skin, eyes and brain. Before the ban, 99% of PCBs used in the U.S. were produced by Monsanto.

1984

Monsanto pays out millions of dollars to Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange.

1985

The company purchases chemical manufacturer G.D. Searle, despite a previous FDA inquiry into Searle’s chief product, aspartame, a controversial sweetener, which Donald Rumsfeld had pushed to get approved.

1994

The company introduces its first genetically modified product, recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) in efforts to increase milk production.

1996

Monsanto introduces its first two genetically engineered seeds, Roundup Ready soybeans and insect-resistant cotton.

Researchers reveal aspartame could pose health risks to consumers.

1998

Scientists document the first Roundup-resistant weed, with another to be discovered in 2000 and three more in 2004. To date, 24 weeds have developed resistance to Roundup worldwide thanks to overuse of the chemical.

2000

Monsanto splits its medical and agricultural operations into separate companies, the agricultural company keeping the Monsanto name.

2003

Monsanto and subsidiary Solutia agree to pay more than $700 million to Alabama residents over widespread health problems connected to PCB contamination.

2011

More Roundup Ready crops, including alfalfa, sugar beets and corn are approved.

Speculation grows that overuse of products like Roundup is to blame for colony collapse disorder affecting honey bees.

2012

The company makes strong opposition to California’s Proposition 37 that would have required labeling of foods with genetically engineered ingredients. Thanks in part to Monsanto’s $8.1 million in donations to the campaign, the initiative fails at the ballot box.

2014

Monsanto reports revenue of nearly $16 billion.

Monsanto Today

While it got its start making food additives, the company’s chief products today are agricultural, from seeds to herbicides. And Monsanto’s impact on modern farming in the U.S. and around the world is undeniable.

Reach

Monsanto-patented seeds are used to grow

93% of U.S. soybeans
80% of U.S. corn
282 million: Acres worldwide using Monsanto products
40%: Total U.S. crop acreage using Monsanto products
404: Total facilities worldwide, in 66 countries

Influence

Monsanto lobbying spending by year

2008: $8,831,120

2009: $8,694,000

2010: $8,030,000

2011: $6,370,000

2012: $5,970,000

2013: $6,940,000

2014: $4,120,000

Monsanto board members have worked or advised for …

the EPA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
presidential advisory committees
universities
international trade councils and science academies

Control of farmers

The licensing agreement on every bag of Monsanto seed ensures the company can sue farmers for not following Monsanto procedures and allows the company to investigate fields and records of farmers anytime it chooses. The company also has a toll-free hotline where neighbors and community members can report on farmers who may be using Monsanto seeds without a license.

We’ve only scratched the surface of how Monsanto controls our food supply with genetically engineered products. With its hands in so much of the food we eat and politicians in its back pocket, there’s no doubt Monsanto will continue to exert control and influence over agriculture and human health.

Sources:
http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/gm/harmful.html
http://www.monsanto.com/investors/pages/financial-highlights.aspx
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/MonsantoReport.pdf#_ga=1.100366044.319167375.1436453940
http://www.rense.com/general33/legal.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Monsanto_Company.aspx
http://www.alternet.org/food/how-monsanto-went-selling-aspirin-controlling-our-food-supply
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000000055&year=2007

Original source http://www.topmastersinhealthcare.com/

August 19 2015

The GMO Labeling Law to End All GMO Labeling Laws

Food Tank Food Politics, GMOs 0

Timothy Wise of Tufts University gives an update on the GMO labeling debate.

As the vitriol intensifies in what passes for debate over the safety of genetically modified foods, scientific inquiry, thankfully, continues. A Tufts researcher, Sheldon Krimsky, recently published his assessment of the last seven years of peer-reviewed evidence, finding 26 studies that “reported adverse effects or uncertainties of GMOs fed to animals.”

If recent history is any indication, Sheldon Krimsky should expect to be slammed as a “science denier.”

The current vehemence is the product of a well-funded campaign to “depolarize” the GMO debate through “improved agricultural biotechnology communication,” in the words of the Gates Foundation-funded Cornell Alliance for Science. And it is reaching a crescendo because of the march of the Orwellian “Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015” (code-named “SAFE” for easy and confusing reference) through the U.S. House of Representatives on July 23 on its way to a Senate showdown in the fall.

In an April New York Times op-ed, Alliance for Science affiliate Mark Lynas follows the party line, accusing environmentalists of “undermining public understanding of science,” even more than climate deniers and vaccine opponents. Slate’s William Saletan goes further in his July feature, calling those who want GM labeling “an army of quacks and pseudo-environmentalists waging a leftist war on science.”

Who would have known that depolarization could feel so polarizing—and so stifling of scientific inquiry.

Precaution and the Public’s Right to Know What We Eat

The SAFE law sounds like it promises what polls suggest 99 percent of Americans want, accurate labeling of foods with GM ingredients. It likely guarantees that no such thing will ever happen.

Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GM labeling laws.

Backed by biotech and food industry associations, SAFE would make it illegal for states to enact mandatory GM labeling laws. It would instead establish a “voluntary” GM labeling program that pretty well eviscerates the demand for the right to know what’s in our food. It would undercut the many state level efforts.

Vermont now has a labeling law that survived industry opposition, threats, and a court challenge, which may explain why the industry got busy in Congress. If you can’t beat democracy, change it. The Senate is expected to take up the bill after its August recess.

As written, SAFE is truly the labeling law to end all labeling laws.

The biotech industry is acting desperate for a reason. It’s seen Europe and most of the world close its regulatory doors to GM crops, for now, insisting on the same “precautionary principle” enshrined in the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. That principle calls for a relatively high level of precaution before the introduction of a new technology, to avoid the kinds of unintended consequences that have caused such harm in the past: tobacco, thalidomide, DDT, PCBs, and other cases of industry-backed claims of safety that, in retrospect, proved deadly.

Not SAFE for Science

In a sane world that respects scientific inquiry, we would be engaged in a debate about the appropriate levels of precaution that we as a society want for a technology as novel as genetic engineering. That would be constructive, not to mention depolarizing.

Instead, we get pundits like Lynas and Saletan tarring anyone who dares call for precaution with the stain of being another science-denying zealot who ignores the scientific evidence that no one has been harmed by all the GM foods consumed in the United States.

To reinforce how duped or dumb the American public is, they point to a Pew Institute poll indicating that 88 percent of scientists think GM foods are safe, while just 37 percent of the public thinks so. The gap is repeatedly cited as a measure of how science-deniers are winning the public relations battle, and how ignorant the U.S. people are on the issue.

Maybe not. Is it really a surprise that nearly nine in ten scientists think a new invention is good for society? Not really. As Joel Achenbach explained in his otherwise good piece on science denial in National Geographic, we all suffer from “confirmation bias,” the tendency to interpret information in ways that confirm our existing beliefs. True enough, and guess what group scores high for confirmation bias in favor of new technology? Scientists. Honestly, I’m shocked that 12 percent of scientists think GM food isn’t safe.

Given the negligence of U.S. regulatory authorities in accepting industry claims of safety, is the public really so foolish to be skeptical, of both industry and government?

What about that skeptical public? Are they really just ignorant and brainwashed? Or is their confirmation bias perhaps informed by their repeated experiences with big corporations telling them something is safe or good for them and finding out it’s deadly. Who in the United States has not lost a family member or friend to smoking-related disease? Given the negligence of U.S. regulatory authorities in accepting industry claims of safety, is the public really so foolish to be skeptical, of both industry and government?

Washington University’s Glenn Stone drove the scientific point home nicely about how long the process of scientific discovery of hazards can be. He documents how DDT was suspected as a cause of breast cancer but studies kept failing to find a link. This is, until 2007, when an intrepid researcher thought to ask if girls exposed to DDT during puberty had a higher risk of breast cancer. More than half a century after they were exposed, she found what no one else had: a five times greater risk in such girls, and a significant additional risk in their female children.

On GMOs and labeling, Stone asks if all the evidence is really in just 20 years into this experiment. Are there comparable studies of GM effects on pregnant or lactating women and developing infants and children? No, there are not.

No Consensus on Food Safety

For those still willing to look past the campaign slogans and slurs, science is still happening. My colleague at Tufts University, Sheldon Krimsky, examined peer-reviewed journal articles from 2008-2014. Contrary to the claims of consensus, he found 26 studies that showed significant cause for concern in animal studies, among many studies that showed no harm.

He identified clear evidence that proteins transferred into the genome of another plant species can generate allergic reactions even when the original transgene did not, a scientific finding that undermines industry claims that the transgenic process creates no instability in the genome. (Scientists even have a name for such a gene: an “intrinsically disordered protein.”)

Krimsky found eight reviews of the literature and they showed anything but consensus. Three cited cause for concern from existing animal studies. Two found inadequate evidence of harm that could affect humans, justifying the U.S. government’s principle that if GM crops are “substantially equivalent” to their non-GM counterparts, this is adequate to guarantee safety. Three reviews suggested that the evidence base is limited, the types of studies that have been done are inadequate to guarantee safety even if they show no harm, and further study and improved testing is warranted.

What about the much-cited consensus among medical and scientific associations? Krimsky found no such agreement, just the same kind of wide variation in opinion, which he usefully ascribes to differing standards, methods, and goals, not ignorance or brainwashing.

Krimsky goes out of his way, however, to document the industry-backed campaigns to discredit two scientific studies that found cause for concern, and he warns of the anti-science impact such campaigns can have. “When there is a controversy about the risk of a consumer product, instead of denying the existence of certain studies, the negative results should be replicated to see if they hold up to rigorous testing.”

That would have been a refreshing, and depolarizing, industry response to the recent World Health Organization finding that Roundup Ready herbicides are a “probable human carcinogen.” Instead of calling for further study to determine safe exposure levels, the industry called out its attack dogs to discredit the study.

Who here is really anti-science?

Originally published at FoodTank.

Photo by ALTER-EU

August 6 2015

American Courage: 9 Things We Can Do to Fix Food

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, Real Food 0

This morning, an employee inside of Kellogg’s reached out, as did a chemical engineer who used to work at DuPont and a farmer and dad of three who recently lost his wife to cancer.

This issue of food safety touches all of us. It doesn’t matter where we work or what side of the aisle that we are on. Americans want access to clean and safe food. They want it to be affordable and they want as much information as possible about how it is made and where it comes from.

However, our government is moving in the opposition direction of providing that information. Legislators recently voted against GMO labeling and against country of origin labeling. It’s ironic, because we spend more on health care and disease management than any other country on the planet. Eighteen cents of every dollar. Wouldn’t you think we’d want to know more about the food we are eating not less?

Our country and our economy are only as healthy as its citizens, and cancer, autism, food allergies and diabetes don’t care if we are a Republican or a Democrat, a libertarian or an independent. These condition and diseases don’t follow party lines, they are impacting families everywhere. It can be a lot to manage.

And out of nowhere, inspiration came from Ohio this week.

When I was first asked to speak in Cleveland, it was shortly after my first TEDx talk back in 2011. The CEO of Nestle’s frozen food division called.

That invitation changed everything. The team was large but private. The CEO had invited me and others in to address the changes that were happening in the food industry. The group also included the head of marketing from McDonald’s. It was for a working session with his team.

“You can say things that I can’t say.” He said. He was a father of three and was watching the company’s sales tank. “I don’t want this headquarter building to go from five floors to four to three to two to one….” He said.

He meant every word of it.

The first evening, we gathered in their beautiful gourmet kitchen, surrounded by chefs who ushered us through making exquisite versions of their pizzas and hot pockets. It was a bit surreal. The marketing head of McDonald’s spoke about how when they launched their first smoothie, they took out something like a quarter of the world’s blueberry supply.

The CEO sat next to me, and we spoke through the entire event. At the end, I turned to him quietly and said, “You get this, you know what you need to do, what are you afraid of?’

Without hesitating, his answer was clear: “My board of directors.”

I never forgot that.

So when I was invited back to Cleveland to speak this week, all of those memories came flooding back. In no small part because we were just down the street from those initial Nestle meetings. We were next to the West Side Market in Ohio’s most popular restaurant only this time in a hugely popular restaurant called Town Hall.

I’ve done a lot of events in the last ten years, met many brilliant business people with the moral courage of heros.

But nothing could have prepared me for what I would see in Cleveland.

The city is experiencing a resurgence, its architecture is beautiful, classic American, the kind our grandfathers would have been proud of. The city was in the middle of preparing for the Republican National Convention which it is hosting in 2016.

I thought back to when my hometown of Houston hosted the same. Bush, Sr. was running for reelection. We all piled into cars to attend, college kids, and climbed the stands of the stadium to hear his keynote.

That all raced through my head, pulling into Cleveland, how each stage of our lives prepares us for the next one, whether we know it or not.

My first morning there, I was scheduled for a radio interview. She was sharp and directed the questions towards politics and capitalism. Why does food policy tend to divide on party lines? They were great, very important questions, and I realized that the ears were conservative ones, just like my own family back in Texas. Cancer doesn’t care if we are Republican or Democrat, though, neither does diabetes, autism or life threatening food allergies.

And I thought about how much had changed in the 15 years that I’d lived in Colorado. How many Democrats and Republicans had reached out, how much honesty I’d seen. One being that I don’t think we’d choose the political system that we have inherited. It didn’t really seem to fit younger generations. Would we choose a two party system? Would we still define them this way?

I could feel all of it in Cleveland, the tradition and the movement towards the trajectory towards something new.

And as the day went on, more interviews were scheduled and meetings continued. The owner of the restaurant, hosting the evening’s event which was scheduled with Congressman Tim Ryan, was a man named Bobby.

He is 34.

His restaurant, Town Hall, is the most successful restaurant in Ohio and had made a commitment to being free from GMOs. That’s huge by any measure. He’d brought in a brilliant consultant who’d only recently graduated from Cornell, Alex. Alex’s brain was fierce, and I loved him for his honesty and knowledge. He was 27. The team spoke about the distribution challenges, the economies of scale needed for them to get what they needed at a cost that enabled them to continue to grow. They spoke about their challenges and the surprises they’d seen.

And I found myself wishing for an IPO for this amazing business model so that it could spread around the country.

The menu was delicious and fun, the side benefit was that it was free from the junk. No one in there seemed to be focused on that, though, they were there for the atmosphere, the energy of the place and the incredible food.

What struck me was that it was all ages. Guys in their 70s that you’d expect to see on the golf course on a Tuesday afternoon were on the patio, sitting at tables eating organic food.

The place was overflowing with millennials and kids fresh out of high school and college. It was huge and full, and it was so inspiring.

And I thought back to earlier in the morning when I’d been doing the first interview, a boat had sailed by. On the side, it said, “American Courage.”

And here in the heartland of Ohio, you could feel it. You could feel it in the passion of this incredible team: the woman doing the PR, in the servers, in the chefs, in the guys who handpicked the drinks, and you could feel in the heart and mind of that business owner.

It was contagious, and that courage, love and passion was in every part of that menu.

As the evening wore down, I found myself wishing that I could put a TownHall in every city in America: Denver, Birmingham, Austin, Atlanta.

The food was incredible, but the vision was, too: the hope for a better way, a healthy America, full of heart, love, intellect and pioneering passion, the founding principals of our country so that we could pursue life, liberty and happiness.

None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something, as we focus on progress not perfection.

It’s up to us. Our founding fathers did it. It’s our turn to do it, too.

And on the flight home, Dave Matthews’ song, Mercy, ran through my head….

Don’t give up
I know you can see
All the world and the mess that we’re making.

Can’t give up and hope God will intercede
Come on back, imagine that we could get it together.

Stand up for what we need to be
Cause crying won’t save or feed a hungry child
Can’t lay down and wait for a miracle to change things

Lift up your eyes, lift up your heart.

Mercy will we overcome this?
One by one could we turn it around?

One by one, we can turn it around. We already are.

So what can we do as individuals, as families, as Americans? Here are 9 ideas.

Start a book club
Start a movie night
Host a speaker at your children’s school
Host a speaker at your church
Invite a local restauranteur in to teach families about cooking
Reach out to your local legislator (they have kids, too)
If you know how to cook, offer to teach others.
Plant something, a lima bean in a cup, a tomato plant, a garden.
Write to brands and ask them for more free-from products (free from GMOs, chemicals and dyes).

Do one thing, so that together, we can build this new food economy and a food system for 21st century families.

August 4 2015

Proposed Legislation Creates Incentive for Young Farmers

Food Tank Food Politics 0

The average age of principal farm operators is on the rise, up 1.2 percent from 2007 to 2012, as fewer and fewer young people choose farming as a profession. This trend is partly a result of the high costs of starting a farm, lack of capital, and low projected income. The National Young Farmers Coalition (NYFC) conducted a young farmers survey and found that 78 percent of respondents struggle with lack of capital, while 30 percent of respondents would like to choose farming as a career but haven’t because their income would not be enough to cover their student loans.

To address this crisis, Republican Representative Chris Gibson from New York and Democratic Representative Joe Courtney from Connecticut introduced The Young Farmer Success Act (House Bill 2590) on June 1, 2015.

The Representatives view farming as an essential service, and the bill hopes to incentivize choosing farming as a career by adding the profession to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program. Under the program—which is currently in place for public service professions such as government service, teaching, and nursing—the government may forgive a borrower’s loan after making 120 qualifying payments, or about 10 years’ worth, while the farmer is employed full-time.

“Much like teachers, doctors, nurses, and government employees who are already eligible for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program, farmers are public servants,” said Congressman Gibson in a press announcement. “Our farmers not only produce our food and fiber, they protect the landscape and generate substantial economic activity in every state. A self-reliant nation requires a vibrant agricultural sector, but student loan debt creates a significant barrier to getting started in farming. Our bill empowers young people to attend college and embrace this important vocation.”

Take action and show your support. Find your representative and write her an email, or use the pre-drafted messaged from the NYFC.

July 23 2015

Watch: A Congresswoman Who Voted Against the GMO Labeling Bill

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, GMOs 3

Today, members of our House of Representatives were part of a historic vote that took away Americans right to know what is in the food we feed our families, and in a short two minute video below, a brave Congresswoman explains why she voted against it.

This afternoon, H.R. 1599, the Pompeo legislation regarding GMO labeling passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 275-150. Republicans and Democrats voted against our right to know what’s in our food, and some Republicans and Democrats voted for our right to know. The roll call vote can be found here.

The bill preempts state GMO labeling laws, like the ones that have been introduced in 30 states. It allows natural claims on foods containing GMOs which are a patented invention by the biotech industry, and it blocks state efforts to protect consumers from misleading natural claims. In other words, it takes away our ability to fight back.

Not only is it inconsistent with the organic regulations in a number of ways – it defines “genetically engineered plant” differently than the organic regulations do; it relates only to plants, not products, which differs from the organic regulations, it is a fundamental human right that has been granted to citizens that 60% of the world’s population, all of our key trading partners.

This piece of legislation also allows animals to be fed GMO feed, and their slaughter by-products to be labeled non-GMO. If you fed a baby GMOs, would you label that baby as non-GMO? Probably not. On top of that, it includes exceptions that would allow the use of GMO processing aids, enzymes, microorganisms, nutrients, and items approved on the National List in products that would be labeled non-GMO.

Many groups, organizations, leaders, businesses and individuals oppose this bill that was just approved by House this afternoon. Absent a federal mandated GMO labeling scheme, many Americans strongly believe that states should retain the right to require GMO labels on genetically-modified foods.

This issue now moves to the Senate. Currently, no companion bill has been introduced in the Senate, although Senator Hoeven (R-ND) has been working on a similar bill.

Bonnie Watson Coleman, a long-time and influential advocate for the people of New Jersey, is currently serving her first term in the United States Congress. Prior to her election as Representative for New Jersey’s 12th Congressional District, Watson Coleman served eight consecutive terms in the New Jersey General Assembly.

Representative Coleman gives a great talk to constituents about her views on H.R. 1599 which some have dubbed the DARK Act (Denying Americans Right to Know) owing to the fact that it is designed to suppress GMO labeling efforts across the country.

And while Bonnie was willing to take this stand, too few of our elected leaders did. Don’t you wish that they had to wear the logos of their sponsors the way that Nascar drivers do?

We need members of Congress to represent the people that elected them, not just the companies that are funding them. If they don’t, it’s time for them to exit.

While Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman was in the minority in the House which has now passed H.R. 1599, we have this list of those that voted for it, the people that voted against the will of the country. The roll call vote can be found here. Please share this list. Please reach out to your local rep and let them know that you believe in the basic freedoms that our country was founded upon: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those pursuits are futile if we remain as sick as we have become.

The fight to protect our food rights now moves to the Senate.

Watch the video below and the use the lookup tool below to contact your Senators to share your view.

July 21 2015

John Oliver Takes on Food Waste

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, Real Food, Solutions 1

John Oliver discusses food waste in the way that only he can. Parody and satire can be great tools for driving home how stupid things that we consider normal in life really are. Food waste is one of them. As John will tell you we have millions of people in this country who cannot get enough food. Yet, we through away enough to fill over 700 football stadiums. What’s wrong with this picture? A lot.

Not to mention that when you throw in the claims that we need GMOs to feed the world, you have to ask the question: Do we really?

U.S. farmers have been sold on genetically modified crops, but the world isn’t buying. What if they had the financial flexibility to grow what the world wants? We produce just 4% of global fruit, vegetables, wheat and rice. In fact, we import 60% of our fruits and vegetables and 80% of our seafood and produce less than 8% of all global calories.

Yet we still waste 30-40% of that.

Enjoy John Oliver’s coverage and then do what you can to help change this situation…like sharing this video.

May 26 2015

How Kids Are Driving the Mainstreaming of Organics

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics 1

Today’s announcement that Similac will offer a GMO-free baby formula exclusively at Target speaks to the changing landscape of the health of our children. Similac announced the change in response to consumer demand.

The landscape of childhood has changed. No longer are our children guaranteed a childhood free from diabetes, obesity or food allergies, and parents are standing on the front line.

Parents are looking for food that is free from artificial ingredients: artificial dyes, artificial growth hormones and the newly patented genetically engineered ingredients, engineered to be “Roundup Read” and resistant to a weed killer that contains glyphosate, an ingredient that the World Health Organization recently declared a “probably carcinogen.”

The escalating rates of childhood cancers, increasing diagnoses for conditions like autism and food allergies, and the rates of obesity and diabetes have earned this generation of children the title of “Generation Rx”. They are the first generation of kids expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15. The journal Pediatrics has reported 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) and a growing number of American children struggle with obesity. On top of that, the rate for having food allergies is 59% higher for obese children, with the Centers for Disease Control reporting a 265% increase in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions. And while not all of those hospitalizations are for our children, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that the health of our children is under siege.

U.S.-born children have a 34.5 percent chance of developing asthma, hay fever, eczema and food allergies, compared with just 20.3 percent of foreign-born children. In addition, children born outside the U.S. but then moved here were more likely to develop allergies the longer they lived in the country.

When I shared this data with a journalist, she was speechless, and I found myself again wondering: What have our children possibly done to deserve this? And more importantly, what can we do to protect them?

This changing landscape of childhood is changing the face of American families and our economy. We already spend almost 18 cents of every dollar on health care, managing disease. The pharmaceutical companies can’t keep up with demand, and now there are shortages for drugs used to treat cancers and ADHD.

But more often than not, the solution is not found in the medicine cabinet, but in the kitchen, and parents are doing everything they can to protect the health of their children.

Writers that are fortunate enough to not be dealing with conditions like autism, food allergies and pediatric cancer have begun to refer to these parents as the “tyranny of the organic mommy mafia.” Tyranny is a strong word. Merriam Webster defines it as “cruel and unfair treatment by people with power over others.”

Parents that do unexpectedly find themselves on unfamiliar territory are doing everything they can to protect the health of their children. There are others who are fortunate to not know what it feels like to watch your son have a blood disease that literally renders him unable to walk or to have a child suddenly stop talking or to have something as simple as a sandwich be so life threatening. No parent would choose to have these things happen to their child. No parent would choose autism. No parent would choose food allergies and the burden it places on a family every day.

But too many of us now find ourselves staring down these conditions. Food allergies affect 1 in 13 children in the U.S., autism affects 1 in 68, asthma 1 in 10 children, and cancer is impacting 41% of Americans. The conditions themselves can at times feel cruel and tyrannical.

And as scientific evidence continues to mount, courageously presented by doctors like Mark Hyman, MD, in his groundbreaking book, The Blood Sugar Solution, and pediatric specialists like Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. Alan Greene, about the role that diet and nutrition plays in the health of our children, parents are beginning to take notice. Doctors are taking notice, too. M.D. Anderson researchers have even gone so far as to name it, “the doorknob syndrome.” When patients are standing in their offices, having been diagnosed with cancer and given the details about what lies ahead, as they turn to leave the office, with their hand on the doorknob, will turn back in towards the doctor and ask, “Is there anything that I can be doing differently with what I eat?”

The President’s Cancer Panel, formed under the Bush administration and releasing its report under the Obama administration, says yes. The report, Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk, encourages Americans to reduce exposure to certain ingredients now being used in and on our food supply and to eat organic when you can, especially if you have children.

And as we introduce new foods that are nutrient-dense ( full of vitamins and minerals) and try to reduce our loved ones’ exposure to the foods that are nutrient-void (packing mostly artificial ingredients that have been synthetically engineered in laboratories), we are realizing that we have the power to affect remarkable change in the health of our children and families, so that together, we can stem this tide of children flowing into pediatric hospitals being built across the country.

Diet is a lot like religion, it is not one size fits all. And learning that our food contains ingredients for which no long term human health studies have been conducted can cause heartache, a heartache deeply felt by a mother of a child with autism or allergies, as these conditions can so dominate the life of a family, impact its freedom and flexibility.

To then learn that other countries have not allowed these new ingredients, introduced into our food supply in the last ten to twenty years, because of this lack of evidence of safety can then trigger more than just an adjustment in what you put into your shopping cart, it can change how you view our system.

It takes tremendous courage and strength to show up every day when you have a child with autism, allergies or cancer. It is not something anyone would wish for. It is something that writers, fortunate enough to not experience these conditions, could not possibly understand. It is far easier to shoot the messenger.

How do I know? Because I did the same until the epidemics were too close and too destabilizing to dismiss.

If our current spending on health care and disease management is a leading economic indicator, then exercising precaution, the way we do when we buckle our children into a car seat or strap a helmet on their heads, is one of the most conservative things that we could be doing.

From Kroger to Wal Mart, companies are recognizing this shift in consumer demand and responding to this food awakening. They are expanding their offerings so that moms in all socioeconomic categories have access to organic food at an affordable price. They recognize that moms are not trying to create problems, they are simply looking for solutions, standing in the grocery store aisles, holding onto the hand of a child with allergies or autism or diabetes, knowing that they represent the future of our country – our future soldiers, entrepreneurs, educators and innovators.

If you think about it, there is nothing more conservative or patriotic that we could be doing.

Sources:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090504122102.htm
http://pgpf.org/Chart-Archive/0006_health-care-oecd
http://www.webmd.com/add-adhd/news/20120103/adhd-drug-shortages-why
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

May 24 2015

What Do Clothes & GMOs Have in Common? Patagonia’s CEO Sheds Light

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, GMOs 0

Last week, business leaders came together in DC to urge members of Congress to join key U.S. trading partners and pass mandatory labeling of genetically engineered ingredients in our foods.

As expected, the founders of Stonyfield Yogurt, Ben and Jerry’s and leaders from other food companies were there. But so was Rose Marcario, the CEO of Patagonia, Inc. So what do fleece, outdoor apparel and genetically engineered foods have in common?

In the article below, Patagonia’s CEO gives us her take on the importance of labeling GMOs and countering the biochemical lobby’s attempts to block the basic human right to know what is in our foods.

If GMOs are safe, why not label them?

When Yvon Chouinard, founder of Patagonia, began writing about GMOs in the early 2000s, he started by asking a reasonable question: “What does a clothing company know about genetic engineering?”

The answer, he said: “Not enough.” And neither does anyone else. In the proliferation of GMOs, Yvon saw a serious threat to wildness and biodiversity.

More than 10 years later, the prevalence of GMOs in everyday food products has risen sharply—but basic consumer awareness remains low.

An alarming bill before Congress aims to keep it that way. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 (H.R. 4432) will remove any requirements for manufacturers to label foods containing GMOs. Even the misleading name of the bill suggests an intention to leave us in the dark.

We all have a right to know what’s in our food. The manufacturers of GMO seeds maintain that GMO corn and soy, found in many everyday food products, are safe. But if they are safe, why not label them?

Currently, 64 countries around the world require labeling of foods containing GMOs. Most other developed countries—including 28 nations in the European Union, as well as Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia and China—require labeling.

Yet, in the United States, various food companies joined together to sue the state of Vermont, the first state to pass legislation requiring labeling of GMO food. (Last month, a district judge ruled in favor of labeling GMO food.)

Sometimes a new technology puts us up against an edge that’s hard to see, feel or even define. New technologies, like genetically engineered food, should be labeled, so you can decide whether you want to risk ingesting them.

That seems like common sense to us—so it’s not clear why there is so much resistance to labeling GMOs. Among other arguments, large corporations pushing against labeling say the cost of new labels will be great and passed along to the consumer. But an independent study has shown this is unlikely as manufacturers routinely update labels for marketing reasons.

Further, we have a good, time-tested alternative to GMOs on a global scale: organic farming. Modern organic farming can be highly productive—as good as conventional systems but safer and more sustainable. It can produce high yields from small acreage through the use of locally adapted plants, intercropping, improved nutrient recycling and new techniques to minimize leaching, soil erosion and water consumption.

Claims that genetically engineered seeds will provide significant increases in agricultural production worldwide are probably true—but only in the very short term. In a comparison of organic and conventional yields, Rodale Institute discovered that after an initial decline in yields during the first few years of transition, the organic system soon rebounded to match or surpass the conventional system.

Organic farming puts food on the table (and clothing on our backs) without poisoning the earth.

Patagonia switched to organic cotton in 1996 because we found out how many pesticides are used in growing conventional cotton. In our new food line, Patagonia Provisions, we only use organic ingredients.

Business is responding with positive steps forward: In the last six months, several food and restaurant businesses have announced plans to reformulate products to eliminate artificial ingredients, including GMOs.

But even if people don’t buy organic, a majority say they want to know what’s in the food they eat. We should be informed and make our own choices about what we feed our families and ourselves.

So, as a clothing company that recently got into the food business, we believe it would be irresponsible not to push hard for transparency and other imperatives that will shape our ability to keep the planet and all its inhabitants alive and healthy in the future.

I was proud to join with other business leaders on May 20 in Washington, D.C., to talk to lawmakers about the critical need for transparency in food labeling. I encourage you to visit JustLabelIt.org to learn more about how to protect your right to know.

As more and more leaders begin to speak to the need to label these products, it prompts the question, yet again: with 60% of the world’s population already enjoying this transparency, why have Americans been kept in the dark?

To learn more, please visit www.justlabelit.org

May 22 2015

Meet Ractopamine: The Drug in Your Meat that Is Banned in 100 Countries

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics, Health 4

Wal-Mart’s announcement that it is urging its thousands of U.S. suppliers to curb the use of antibiotics in farm animals shines a light on a practice that the meat industry would rather not discuss: the use of drugs on the meat that we eat.

80% of the antibiotics used in the U.S. are used on the animals we eat: injected into them, fed to them and many of the drugs are banned or restricted around the world.

As Wal-Mart steps into this issue, it brings to light one of the most controversial drugs in our food system: ractopamine.

Here in the US, the FDA approved ractopamine and allows the drug to be used widely in U.S. factory farm operations.

There are 196 countries in the world, and it is estimated that 160 countries them ban or restrict ractopamine. But the US? We are not one of them.

The U.K., China, Russia, Taiwan and the European Union ban or limit the use of ractopamine, a drug that promotes growth in pigs, cattle and turkeys. Ractopamine is linked with serious health and behavioral problems in animals, and human studies are limited but evoke concerns, according to the Center for Food Safety.

The U.S. meat industry uses ractopamine to accelerate weight gain and promote feed efficiency and leanness in pigs, cattle, and turkeys. The drug mimics stress hormones.

So how did this drug wind up in our food supply?

The FDA’s approval of the drug relied primarily on the drug-makers’ studies.

No problem, right? Who else would have access to that kind of proprietary information. But if you think about it, it’s kind of like the tobacco industry telling us that we didn’t need to worry about cigarettes. Industry-funded science tends to favor industry.

So what does independent research tell us?

Fed to an estimated 60 to 80 percent of pigs in the U.S. meat industry, ractopamine use has resulted in more reports of sickened or dead pigs than any other livestock drug on the market. According to FDA’s own calculations, more pigs have been adversely affected by ractopamine than by any other animal drug—more than 160,000.

So what exactly does this drug do to the animals that we are eating?

Ractopamine’s effects include toxicity and other exposure risks, such as behavioral changes and cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, reproductive and endocrine problems. It is also associated with high stress levels in animals, “downer” or lame animals, hyperactivity, broken limbs and death.

Based on a lack of available evidence of ractopamine’s safety, most countries have taken a cautionary approach to the presence of ractopamine in their national food systems.

In other words, with the jury still out, they have opted out.

Currently, it is estimated that 160 countries of the 196 in the world ban or restrict ractopamine.

Other countries seem to understand the importance of exercising precaution for stakeholders while the emphasis in our food system tends to focus on the importance of return to shareholders.

While our shareholder-focused food system may have worked for the last twenty years, with the landscape of health changing so dramatically, perhaps it’s time to examine consider the liability it now presents to stakeholders.

The twenty-seven European Union member states, for example, have banned ractopamine. Taiwan severely restricts it.

Russia has announced a ban of imported beef, pork and turkey that is not certified ractopamine-free, and China announced it would stop importing U.S. pork effective March 1, 2013 unless it is certified ractopamine-free by a third party.

As if that isn’t bad enough, while we are eating it, the U.S. has a certified ractopamine-free program in place to sell pork products to the E.U.

In other words, to meet this drug-free demand in other countries, we certify ractopamine-free meat for eaters in other countries, but we just aren’t yet doing it here.

According to the Center for Food Safety, “the U.S. argues that international bans on ractopamine are not based on scientific reasons, but are based on protectionist approaches to enable China, the E.U., and other countries to obtain greater market share. What the U.S. fails to acknowledge is that other countries are taking the lack of human health and animal welfare studies very seriously; ractopamine has not been conclusively determined as safe for humans and animals.”

While few consumers are aware of ractopamine’s use in meat production, the drug has been at the center of international trade disputes for several years, reported NBC News.

It’s not the first time that we’ve seen this, with other ingredients like genetically engineered organisms recently added to our food supply, those long-term human health studies flat out don’t exist. So the industry can conclude “no evidence of harm.” But that’s not the same thing as “evidence of no harm” which is why most countries either ban or label a lot of these new ingredients. It’s called the precautionary principal.

In light of the escalating rates of diseases in the United States and the concern over antibiotic resistance we are now seeing, isn’t it time to ask: What price are we paying for a meat supply so hopped up on drugs? And isn’t it time to join the 160 other countries around the world and begin to do something about it?

Smithfield, one of the largest U.S. pork producers, has at least one production plant that is 100% ractopamine-free and was expected to have its largest plant 100% ractopamine-free by March 1, 2013. These two plants likely service Smithfield’s E.U. and Chinese customers. However, Smithfield said that it will continue to produce pork with ractopamine for other customers. This means Americans. But in a twist, an Asian meat giant struck a $4.7 billion deal and acquired the Virginia based company in September 2013, according to the Wall Street Journal.

So while China makes acquisitions to ensure that its pork supply is free of ractopamine and public interest groups sue the FDA, demanding records of this controversial drug, consumers have a choice: to simply eat less meat or to purchase organic meat, which by law is not allowed to use this drug in production, until our own American corporations decide to make our meat ractopamine-free here in the United States, too.

As Wal-Mart steps into this issue, it’s time for other companies to follow. It’s time to build a food system that meets the needs of 21st century consumers, not just the corporations feeding them.

May 1 2015

Dump the Junk: Is the Grocery Manufacturers Association a 20th Century Relic?

Robyn O'Brien Food Politics 0

In the last few weeks, a growing number of companies in the Grocery Manufacturers Association have announced that they are dumping artificial ingredients from their products. 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?

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 has 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

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 a lawsuit 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, Chipotle 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.