[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In this eye-opening talk, Sharyl Attkisson, an investigative journalist based in Washington D.C, shows how astroturf, or fake grassroots movements funded by political, corporate, or other special interests very effectively manipulate and distort media messages.
In the first few minutes, she shines a powerful light on “cancer myths” and what happens to those who speak truth to power.
Sharyl is currently writing a book entitled Stonewalled (Harper Collins), which addresses the unseen influences of corporations and special interests on the information and images the public receives every day in the news and elsewhere.
Want to know why you should question sources and the confusing “controversies” that can appear in social media? The answer is in this video.
As reported by USA Today, a new poll on GMO labeling was just released. On few other issues are Americans more united: Overall, 77% of respondents are strongly in support of GMO labeling.
What is stunning is that despite the lack of action on this issue by the FDA or Congress, Americans share one message: Label genetically engineered ingredients in our food.
WASHINGTON – By an overwhelming margin, American voters say consumers should have the right to know if their food is genetically modified, with 89 percent in support of mandatory GMO labeling, according to a new national poll. Nearly the same number of consumers would like to see the labels in an easy to read format.
The survey by The Mellman Group confirms previous polls that found heavy support for GMO labeling. The new poll shows labeling is supported by large majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents, as well as people with favorable or unfavorable views of GMOs. Overall, 77 percent of respondents were strongly in favor of labeling.
The poll, commissioned by a coalition of consumer and environmental groups, comes at a timely moment. In Congress, some lawmakers want to add a provision to the omnibus spending bill that would block states from requiring GMO labels for produce and processed food, as would the so-called DARK Act passed by the House last summer.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration just approved the sale of genetically engineered salmon – which grows to maturity twice as fast as normal salmon and is cobbled together from the genes of different species – but the FDA will not require the salmon to be labeled. Other key findings of the poll include:
Almost nine in 10 (88%) would prefer a printed GMO label on the food package rather than use a smartphone app to scan a bar code.
Just 17% say they have ever scanned a bar code to get information, and only 16% sat they have ever scanned a “QR” code.
If bar codes were used, more than 80 percent say food companies should not be allowed to use the app to gather information about shoppers.
“Americans have yet again expressed an overwhelming desire to know what’s in their food,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, the policy and advocacy arm of Consumer Reports. “Shoppers want to see clear labels on food packaging that tell them if products are made with genetically engineered ingredients without having to use confusing codes or smartphone apps. We hope lawmakers hear consumers’ call for meaningful, mandatory national GMO labeling.”
“Everyone needs information to make informed food choices, not just those who have smart phones,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. “There is no acceptable substitute for mandatory on-package labeling of GMO food.”
“GMO labeling via QR code technology is unworkable, threatens privacy and is discriminatory since more than a third of Americans, many of which are low-income or live in rural areas with poor internet access, don’t own smartphones,” said Lisa Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth. “FDA’s approval of GMO salmon makes it all the more urgent that Congress require mandatory, universally accessible GMO labeling that any consumer can read on the package when they’re choosing what to feed their families.”
“QR code labeling discriminates against the poor, minorities, rural populations and the elderly. They are a completely unacceptable substitute for clear, concisely worded on package labeling,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director at Center for Food Safety. “The right to know is a right for all, not just those who can afford it.”
“This is yet another poll that shows broad and deep support for clear GMO labeling at a time when the issue is more important than ever,” said Scott Faber, executive director of Just Label It. “Food manufacturers and lawmakers should work together to give Americans a more transparent food system by crafting a non-judgmental, mandatory GMO labeling system that is easily found on the packaging.”
The Mellman Group surveyed 800 likely general election voters, on mobile and landlines, from November 16 through November 19. The poll was paid for by the Center for Food Safety, Consumers Union, Friends of the Earth, Food & Water Watch, and Just Label It.
The health of our families is changing. With each new diagnosis, whether due to a food allergies, diabetes, a cancer diagnosis or something else, we are learning more about our food and that it now contains a lot of artificial ingredients that aren’t used in other countries.
The journal Pediatrics reports that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls). In the U.S., there is an artificial growth hormone in our milk supply, rbGH, that no other developed country uses. Breyer’s recently dumped this artificial growth hormone, following on the heels of countless other food companies and grocery retailers.
The FDA still hasn’t said much about it.
As I took a look at the FDA’s website on milk, I found something that I hadn’t seen before when it comes to the fortification process where vitamins are added.
For the past almost 20 years, much of our nation’s milk has come from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone.
According to the FDA’s website, “a number of different types of concentrates are available. All contain vitamin D and/or vitamin A palmitate with a carrier consisting of any of the following: butter oil, corn oil, evaporated milk, non-fat dry milk, polysorbate 80, propylene glycol and glycerol monooleate. It is best to store all concentrates under refrigeration unless manufacturer’s directions indicate otherwise. To achieve adequate dispersion, viscous concentrates should be brought to room temperature before addition.”
A growing number of Americans are allergic to milk. Milk allergy has taken the lives of several children. Are we allergic to milk or to what’s been done to it?
Here’s a little history lesson about the introduction of this artificial growth hormones into the American milk supply in 1994.
For the past almost 20 years, much of our nation’s milk has come from cows injected with a genetically engineered growth hormone. If you didn’t know that, you’re not alone. Since it was never labeled, most of us had no idea that this hormone was introduced into our dairy in 1994. The hormone has two interchangeable names: recombinant bovine somatropine (rBST) and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH).
RBGH has dominated the milk market almost since the FDA approved it in 1993. It was the first genetically engineered product ever brought to market. And the Associated Press (AP), the New York Timesand the rest of the media have called it “controversial” (the AP headline actually referred to it as “a bumper crop of controversy”).
So what is rBGH anyway? Although the product is made in a lab, it’s designed to mimic a hormone that’s naturally produced in a cow’s pituitary glands. It’s injected into cows every two weeks to boost their hormonal activity, causing them to produce an additional 10 to 15 percent more milk, or about one extra gallon each day. And within the first four years of its introduction in 1994, about one-third of the nation’s cows were in herds being treated with this growth hormone.
If all you knew about rBGH and this hormone was that it increased milk production, you might think it was a good thing. Why shouldn’t we use every means at our disposal to boost the supply of such a nutritious food?
Well, besides increasing milk production, rBGH apparently does a few other things, too.
First of all, the product seems to be hazardous to the cows. The package itself warns of such bovine problems as “increases in cystic ovaries and disorders of the uterus,” “decreases in gestation length and birthweight of calves,” and “increased risk of clinical mastitis.” Mastitis is a painful type of udder infection that causes cows to pump out bacteria and pus along with milk, requiring treatment with antibiotics and other meds that can end up in the milk.
When I first read this, I had to stop and walk away from the computer for a few minutes. How many bottles and sippy cups had I filled with this milk? Why hadn’t I known about rBGH when I was pouring countless bowls of cereal for my children? I shuddered at the thought that along with the milk, I had also been giving them doses of growth hormone and antibiotics, not to mention potentially exposing them to cow bacteria and udder pus. How had I not known about this Dirty Dairy?
Want some antiobiotics with that growth hormone?
On top of that, and is often cited in the press (most recently by Laurie David), 80% of antibiotics are now used on our livestock here in the U.S. And overexposure to antibiotics tends to kill off the friendly bacteria in our intestines—bacteria that we need for our digestion and immune system. Many doctors believe that too many antibiotics at too early an age is part of the reason that kids are more likely to be allergic: their immune systems aren’t being given the “microbial environment” that they require. Wonder how many “extra” antibiotics our kids are getting in their milk, cheese, and yogurt? Maybe it’s not just about those hand sanitizers.
And then on top of that, allergies are the body’s response to proteins that it considers “toxic invaders,” and that genetically engineered proteins may spark new allergies. According to CNN and a recent study published in the Journal of Allergy and Immunology, milk allergy is now the most common food allergy in the U.S., having risen to the number-one position in the last 10 years. It’s even starting to affect the sale of milk in schools. Might rBGH be a factor in that increase? We wouldn’t have a clue. No human studies were conducted.
The Canadian federal health agency actually found that “the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50 percent” in cows that were given rBGH.
But let’s get back to the cows, because rBGH can hurt them in several more ways. The label also warns of possible increase in digestive disorders, including diarrhea; increased numbers of lacerations on the cows’ hocks (shins); and a higher rate of subclinical mastitis.
Bad enough when dairy cows get visibly sick, because then they’re treated with antibiotics that end up in our milk. But what about the cows who are getting sick at a subclinical level—a level so subtle that farmers don’t notice it? Think of the bacteria and pus pouring out of those inflamed udders—infections that aren’t even being treated! How does drinking that milk affect us, our kids, and our babies in the womb?
Those are just the problems acknowledged on the rBGH product label. Another concern is that the extra hormones drain the cows’ bones of calcium, so that they tend to become lame. The Canadian federal health agency actually found that “the risk of clinical lameness was increased approximately 50 percent” in cows that were given rBGH. Partly as a result, Canada has banned the product, concluding that it “presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows.”
rBGH is banned in other developed countries but not in the U.S.
Canada isn’t the only country to bar rBGH. The genetically altered hormone has also been banned in the European Union, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, the U.N. agency that sets food safety standards, Codex Alimentarius, has refused to approve rGBH not just once but twice.
Farmers themselves have noticed problems with the product. In addition to the expense of the drug itself, rBGH results in higher feed bills, higher vet bills due to increased antibiotic use, and more cows removed from the herd due to illness or low productivity. One study found that 25 to 40 percent of dairy farmers who tried rBGH soon gave it up because it wasn’t profitable enough to justify the damage to their cows. Other farmers have said that they see how hard the product is on cows, and they don’t want to subject their animals to such treatment.
Okay, so that’s why rBGH hurts cows. But I’m way more concerned about us and our kids. How does having a genetically altered hormone in our milk supply affect us?
Health concerns include possible link to cancer
As early as 1998, an article in the Lancet, the prestigious British medical journal, reported that women with even relatively small increases of a hormone known as Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) were up to seven times more likely to develop premenopausal breast cancer.
And guess what? According to a January 1996 report in the International Journal of Health Services, rBGH milk has up to 10 times the IGF-1 levels of natural milk. More recent studies have put the figure even higher, at something like 20-fold.
Now stop and think about that for a minute, while correlation is not causation, breast cancer used to be something that women got later in life. Premenopausal breast cancer was so rare that when young women presented their physicians with breast cancer symptoms, the doctors often failed to diagnose it, simply because it was so unlikely that an “older women’s disease” would be found among young women.
But according to the Young Survival Coalition, one in 229 women between the ages of 30 and 39 will be diagnosed with breast cancer in the next ten years. Why are all these young women now getting breast cancer? And what about the effects of IGF-1-laden milk on older women, who are already at greater risk for breast cancer?
In case you think that the rising cancer rates have something to do with genetics, stop and think again. According to the Breast Cancer Fund, 1 in 8 women now have breast cancer. But only 10 percent of those cases can be linked to genetics. In other words, 90 percent of breast cancers being diagnosed today are being triggered by factors in our environment.
How did this happen?
Now if you’re like me, your next question probably is, So, if we know all of this, how did this hormone find its way into our dairy products? How did our government agencies, responsible for ensuring the safety of our food, allow the use of this growth hormone and the sale of IGF-1-laden milk? Why was rBGH not used in Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, but used so freely right here in our own United States?
Well, the year before the FDA approved the first genetically engineered protein, it said, “Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.” But at the same time, the corporate communication’s director of Monsanto, company introducing rBGH, said, ” We should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.’s job.”
You read that right. It’s kind of a “Who’s on first?” routine. Didn’t we learn anything from the tobacco industry?
So with the jury still out on this one, no long-term human trials ever conducted, a self-regulated industry whose “interest is in selling as much of it as possible,” the increasing rates of antibiotics used on our livestock (not to mention the increasing rates of early puberty and cancer), and the stunning fact that this synthetic growth hormone was never approved for use in Canada, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all 27 countries in Europe, maybe it’s time we start to exercise a little bit of precaution here in the U.S., too.
How to Opt-Out of rBGH
Thankfully, we can opt out of this experiment and look for milk labeled “organic” or “rBGH-free”— since by law, these types of milk are not allowed to contain rBGH, a genetically engineered product that was never allowed into the milk, cheese, ice creams and other dairy products in other developed countries. And you can find this milk in Wal-Mart, Costco & Sam’s.
And while correlation is not causation, with the American Cancer Society telling us that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes and the Centers for Disease Control reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15, a precautionary move like this one just might be what the doctors ordered (at least that’s what they did in all 27 countries in Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK and Japan).
So are we allergic to milk? Or to what’s been done to it?
Right now, the organic industry is growing at what seems like breakneck speed. Consumers can’t seem to get enough of it. The U.S. organic food market is expected to grow 14% from 2013-2018.
Investors are betting on it, and big food companies are, too. General Mills dropped $820 million to acquire Annie’s, Hormel paid $775 million to purchase Applegate. Wall Street is betting on it.
When Annie’s went public back in March of 2012, the company saw the biggest opening day gain of any company in any industry in almost a year under the ticker symbol BNNY. What does that mean? It means that Wall Street got more excited about a bowl of mac and cheese that didn’t have a bunch of junk in it than any other technology in any industry.
The numbers don’t lie. Big food sees big opportunity in the organic industry and is buying it up. Coca Cola and Goldman Sachs recently acquired an almost 50% stake in Suja, an organic juice company that is a millennial favorite. Why? Because they see the growth.
Kroger is expanding its organic product offering, Wal-Mart is launching a private label line, and Safeway is committing to further growth in the space. Demand is growing in zip codes around the country, not just in those for Whole Foods shoppers.
Kroger, back in 2012, launched its “Simple Truth” line, a private label free from a lot of artificial ingredients, additives and “Simple Truth Organic” which is free from high fructose corn syrup, GMOs, artificial colors, artificial growth hormones and more. What happened? The Simple Truth division went from $0 to almost $1 billion in revenue in a two year period.
So what’s going on? And is it sustainable?
Big Organic? More like big supply problem.
Right now, its’ not sustainable at all. The organic industry is growing at an incredible clip, one that is attractive to any investor, but the underlying fundamentals need to be restructured.
Why? Of the 915 million acres that we have under farm management in the United States, only 5.5 million are organic farmland. Less than 1%.
So we have an industry that is growing at 14% a year, that represents only 5% of the total U.S. food market, but is less than 1% of U.S. farmland.
Big Organic? More like big supply problem. For the industry to grow, farmland has to be converted. Perhaps that is why General Mills just committed to doubling the amount of organic acreage under management by 2020.
It can’t happen soon enough for shareholders and for spoon holders. The demand is obvious.
But “Big Organic”? At less than 1% of U.S. farmland with organic acreage, that is a big myth.
If we want to scale the organic industry, not only for our families, but also for the food companies that are buying into it, we have to address this bottleneck. If the Grocery Manufacturers Association is truly acting in the interests of its member companies, it should be leading the charge. It isn’t.
Which begs the question? Who will.
There is large regional variation in the area of land farmed organically. Oceania, which includes Australia, New Zealand, and Pacific Island nations, leads the world in certified organic land. Europe is close behind. The U.S. is lagging. Organic isn’t a silver bullet, but it also isn’t a fad.
Right now, in the United States, the Organic Trade Association is trying to expand organic acreage under management. But before roll your eyes and say, “Well, obviously.” Interestingly, it’s an association whose members also include companies like General Mills.
Over 3,000 farms are transitioning to organic across the country. 51% of families are buying more organic products than a year ago. In other words, this isn’t a niche anymore. So how do we address this growing demand as a country with such a limited supply?
Sales of organic food and non-food products in the United States totaled $39.1 billion in 2014. Total sales of Coca Cola alone was greater than the entire organic industry at $45.9 billion. The combined market caps of Coca Cola and Pepsi are ten times the size of the entire organic industry. Organic sales now near a milestone of 5% share of the total food market. Big Organic? Hardly.
Room for growth? Definitely. And that can look like either a threat or an opportunity.
So why the pushback? Why the defamation and slander? Doesn’t it seem to be in the best interests of both shareholders of the companies investing in the industry as well as the growing number of consumers who want it? Supply and demand would indicate that an increase in supply would help to bring pricing down. Doesn’t it seem to be in the interest of the 51% of families purchasing organic to make it more available and more affordable?
The industry is growing at 14% but still only represents 5% of the total food market. To hear the opposition talk, you’d think it was big, really BIG. At less than 1% of U.S. farmland as organic acreage, it’s anything but.
But the landscape in front of us is wide open, to convert farms and expand the supply chain, so that the 51% of families who want organic can find it at an affordable price.
Whole Foods can’t solve that for us. They are 3% of grocery. Kroger, Costco, Wal-Mart and Safeway can. A change in thinking can. Big Food can. And the biggest ask that we could be making of these companies is for them to commit to expanding organic acreage and to address this bottleneck.
Right now, conventional food has 95% of the playing field. Organic, while growing, has only 5%. To hear the opposition, you’d think it was a tied ballgame. It’s anything but. If we leveled the playing field, can you imagine what might happen? For farmers, food companies and the 51% of families who are now buying organic?
If you are not familiar with how the TPP works, you are not alone. The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is one of the biggest trade agreements that our country has ever considered but that few are talking about.
This short two minute video will bring you up to speed quickly and explain why even Congress is not in favor of it.
What can you do? Reach out to your local member of Congress and let them know: democracy is not something that we want traded away.
Monsanto reported earnings this morning, and it was a train wreck.
The company missed their revenue estimates and said corn sales, its biggest source of profit, fell 5.1% year over year to $598 million, and soybean sales dropped 19% to $162 million. On top of that, one of its more profitable divisions, the agricultural productivity segment, which includes the Roundup brand weed killer, also saw sales fall to $1.1B from $1.25B. The company plans to eliminate 2,600 jobs as part of a cost-cutting plan which is 12% of its workforce.
It turns out that Syngenta wasn’t the only ones that didn’t want them.
Over half of the countries in Europe are opting out of their business model, California will be labeling the ingredient in their signature product, Roundup, as a carcinogen, and a growing number of American consumers are calling on the food industry to dump GMOs from their products.
So what to look for from this giant chemical company going forward?
An adjustment or hike to the licensing, trait and royalty fees charged to U.S. farmers (would not be a smart move, as farmers are already going non-GMO due to the cost structure).
Off balance sheet entities (this is where Enron got creative when earnings came under pressure).
Insider trades.
The U.S. food industry. 45% of new product launches are noon-GMO, as consumers are making it crystal clear that they don’t want to eat Roundup Ready food anymore.
The Trans Pacific Partnership: Obama’s first stop when trying to sell this trade agreement which works in favor of Monsanto’s business model was to “business leaders” at the USDA.
If you are not familiar with how the TPP might work, this short two minute video is one of the best tutorials around. It will bring you up to speed quickly and explain why even Congress is not in favor of it. What can you do? Reach out to your local member of Congress and let them know: democracy is not something that we want traded away.
“The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday established the first minimum-age requirement—18—for farm workers applying pesticides to fields.
The change is part of a revision of pesticide rules by the agency, which acknowledged that previous regulation was not enough to prevent an estimated $10 million to $15 million in annual health costs due to chemical exposure among the nation’s 2 million agricultural workers.
As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalizes the new updated Agricultural Worker Protection Standard, Big Ag pushed back hard, citing the expense of protecting farm workers from pesticide exposure.
But here’s the deal: If we don’t protect farm workers, we can’t protect food. We can’t have one without the other.
As part of this work, I speak regularly with farmers and have spent time with farm workers in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and around the world. I’m named after a farmer who battled breast cancer. She also had a daughter with cancer. To say this issue is close to my heart is an understatement. It is critical to our food system, farm families and our future.
Former farm worker Amelia Moran Ceja demonstrates that stewarding the land and your workers can be good for business. Mindful Vineyards features leaders and advocates from the business, labor and environmental communities and is a call for justice in agriculture and protections from pesticides for some of most vulnerable workers in the nation.
As the EPA makes this incredible move to protect both farm workers and our food system, this short video is food for thought.
Coke has been sponsoring “studies” designed to misdirect attention from the effects of drinking their product. It’s not changing much. Their sales are in in the tank and have been in a downward spiral for a decade. The company is trying like crazy to reignite that old flame, but it isn’t working.
Consumers have broken up with them, and revenue is on a downward slide.
To prop up earnings, Coke recently took a sizable position in Suja, a popular, organic juice line that sells its bottle for about $8 a pop. Coca-Cola and Goldman Sachs Group Inc.’s merchant-banking division are investing $150 million in Suja, purchasing just under 50 percent of the company. Coca-Cola will expand Suja’s distribution and provide funds to build a new factory. No junk, nutrient dense, Coke’s no dummy. They see where this movement is going and partnered up with Goldman Sachs to buy in, purchasing a sizable stake in Suja.
According to Bloomberg, “the deal will help boost the number of locations that sell Suja by 50 percent over the next year. The three-year-old company, which made its debut at Whole Foods Markets Inc. in September 2012, also will use Coca-Cola’s procurement network to buy raw materials at lower cost.”
They know, we know, we know they know. So why are they still hiding things? Things like obesity, diabetes, tooth decay—you know, all those “refreshing” things that don’t appear in their ads.
Now you can use Coke’s own website at ShareaCoke.com to deliver your own demand for honesty in their advertising. Watch this short video, and #ShareTheTruth. They’re listening.
So, I was catching up on the New York Post this morning—and was amazed to come across this full page ad basically bashing Chipotle. Hmm…I thought. Chipotle has been doing extremely well and businesses like McDonald’s have been doing poorly, shutting down restaurants around the country and laying off employees. “Could McDonald’s be behind this?” I thought. “Why else would anyone spend this kind of money to bash Chipotle in a way-too-obvious attempt to negate all the positive feedback Chipotle has been getting.” Or it might be Monsanto: king of the push for GMO’s that’s not doing too well either (Chipotle has vowed to go non-GMO). Some big money group is definitely behind a full-page ad, which can run into the tens of thousands of dollars…if not more.
Turns out my suspicions are justified: This ChubbyChipotle ad is the work of a seemingly innocuous and “helpful” group called The Center for Consumer Freedom, a “nonprofit coalition which opposes activist interference with and legal restrictions on the sale of food and drink, etc…” (according to their website). The only problem: this group is one of many created by Washington, D.C. Public Relations (PR) executive and lawyer, Rick Berman, who heads up a PR group called Berman and Company.
No surprise as I dug deeper, Rick Berman is paid for by big money; while you would never get hold of his client list (most companies have their clients front and center on their websites; this guy supposedly firewalls his list so no one knows whom he represents). This is the same guy behind other websites opposing PETA, GreenPeace, unions, raising the minimum wage, and regulation of trans fats and high fructose corn syrup. Click on this independent website to get a bit more background information on this guy (warning: it ain’t pretty).
First of all, when it comes to weight gain—eating too much of ANYTHING can make you fat. But choosing Chipotle for your meals definitely won’t make you chubby unless you’re eating 2 giant burritos, plus chips, plus a giant soda at every meal. Moderation is the key to healthy eating and keeping your weight stable. And beans, rice, avocados, tomatoes, lettuce, and a variety of other healthy ingredients that make up Chipotle’s delicious menu are good for you. (Yes, I’m a Chipotle fan—as well as being an advocate for the truth when it comes to your health and wellbeing).
And when it comes to ads like this, dig deeper because there’s some spinmaster at work behind the ad, trying to make you believe something other than what your gut is telling you is right.
Bottom line: when it comes to your health, always, always trust your gut. If you believe, for example, that organic food is healthiest for your family—don’t listen to the cacophony of negatives against organic food saying that organics are no better than foods sprayed with pesticides. If you believe that genetically modified (GMO) foods aren’t good for your health, stick to your guns because there will be plenty of these ads—and even research studies paid for by these companies not telling the entire truth—based on spinning the truth to make you believe that companies like Monsanto are good and are actually there to feed the world and help prevent hunger. (Not)
Your gut is all you have to rely on because where there’s big money, there are big lobbying groups like Berman and Company working to spin the information so they can all make big money (and you’re left with a host of diseases 10/15 years from now).
As a matter of record, I have received no money from Chipotle to write this post—and in fact, have never received anything free from Chipotle. I choose to eat there with my family because I know it’s healthy food—and the ingredients are fresh. My kids love it. And what’s more: none of us are chubby.
Similac recently announced that they will offer a GMO-free baby formula exclusively at Target. Chipotle also announced that they were dumping GMOs. Target announced that it is expanding its offering of natural and organic products.
Demand for non-GMO and organic food is expanding across all age groups and demographics.
It speaks to the changing landscape of the health of families and the health of our children.
Similac, Target and others announced these changes 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.
