American food companies love to say that they can’t label GMOs because it’s too expensive.
It’s a lie.
As seen in this image from a London grocery store, American food companies already label GMOs overseas. Families weren’t priced out of Twinkies, farmers didn’t go over because of the labeled Ding Dong, they simply added a few words “Derived from a genetically modified source.”
On top of that, Hostess also warn parents on this label that artificial dyes “may have an adverse effect on the activity and attention in children” because these dyes have been repeatedly linked to hyperactivity in kids.
The food industry knows how these ingredients are impacting our families. They label them for families in other countries, but they sing a different song in America.
It’s time to ditch this double standard. These ingredients impact all children, not just those in the UK. And all families, regardless of income, have a right to know how their food is made, even Twinkies.
The double standard has to stop. Please share this image, so that all Americans can know this information, too.
One of the biggest pet peeves of American parents is that a lot of food companies have already removed artificial dyes and colors from the products that they sell overseas. The maker of M&Ms, Mars, has always been one of them. Back in 2008, when I was writing my book, I shared this comment when Mars UK decided to remove artificial dyes from their M&Ms. The date was 2006.
“We know that artificial colours are of concern to consumers, which is why, in 2006, Mars began a programme to remove them from our products. . . in November 2007, Starburst Chews became free from all artificial colours. . . . in December 2007, Skittles were made free from all the artificial colours highlighted in a landmark study by Southampton University. . . We have already removed four colours mentioned in the Southampton study from Peanut and Choco M&M’s, and are in the process of removing the final one so they too will be free from these artificials during 2008.”—Mars UK
Mars, Inc.’s finally took action in the U.S. this week, ten years later, announcing that it will get synthetic food dyes out of its entire human food portfolio is a huge advance for parents and children and should serve as a powerful incentive for the rest of the food industry to follow suit.
The Center for Science in the Public Interest has been a leading voice on this for a decade. Their report, “Rainbow of Risks” is one that many of us have leaned on as authors, parents and advocates. They wrote, “We appreciate the fact that Mars listened to our concerns and to the concerns of its customers and that it is exercising this kind of responsible leadership.
The Food and Drug Administration should level the playing field for the whole industry by banning Yellow 5, Red 40, and other synthetic dyes used in food. There is simply too much evidence demonstrating that these artificial dyes trigger inattention, hyperactivity, and other behavioral reactions in children. The use of these neurotoxic chemicals to provide a purely cosmetic function in foods, particularly foods designed to appeal to children, must stop.
Mars’ action is not only a big victory for parents; it is also a big victory by parents. We’ve been pleased to work with moms and dads from around the country who have written to the FDA, contacted food companies, and signed petitions like the one focused on Mars that Renee Shutters started on Change.org. It shows that when consumers make their voices heard, food companies will sometimes actually listen.”
Last year, I was contacted by members of the team from Mars, and I shared my candid thoughts. If these food companies want to remain relevant in the 21st century and in this new food economy, they can no longer deny the will of their consumers who want food that is free-from all of these artificial ingredients.
It is time to #dumpthejunk. Thank you, Mars, for listening.
Washington, D.C. – Monsanto’s signature herbicide glyphosate, first marketed as “Roundup,” is now the most widely and heavily applied weed-killer in the history of chemical agriculture in both the U.S. and globally, according to a landmark report published today in the journal, Environmental Sciences Europe.
Since 1974 in the U.S., over three billion, five hundred twenty million pounds of glyphosate active ingredient have been applied. Globally, glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready,” genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996
Nearly 75 percent of all glyphosate was sprayed on crops in the last 10 years, surging in use in both the U.S. and globally, raising new concerns over health and environmental risks.
It’s a brilliant earnings model for a chemical company that is selling it. Genetically engineer seeds to withstand increasing applications of glyphosate, and you can sell more of your signature product. A look to Monsanto’s earnings reports from the last ten years tell us exactly that: the sales in their agrochemical division of their signature product, Roundup, took off.
A paper published this week in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Sciences Europe reports that 18.9 billion poundsof glyphosate have been used globally. Glyphosate use has risen almost 15-fold since so-called “Roundup Ready” genetically engineered crops were introduced in 1996.
Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops now account for about 56 % of global glyphosate use.
The paper by Charles Benbrook, PhD, titled “Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally,” and is available free, online at [Environmental Sciences Europe].
“The dramatic and rapid growth in overall use of glyphosate will likely contribute to a host of adverse environmental and public health consequences,” noted Dr. Benbrook in his paper.
In the spring of 2015, the World Health Organization declared glyphosate a “probable carcinogen.”
Record amounts are going onto food crops around the world, and because these genetically engineered foods are not labeled in the United States, many Americans still have no idea.
The President’s Cancer Panel reported that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes. Cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children under the age of 15, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Correlation is not causation, but a correlation of this magnitude merits investigation and precaution. Precaution begins with labeling these genetically engineered ingredients (GMOs).
Last year, 17 of the world’s top cancer researchers unanimously voted to elevate the cancer profile of glyphosate on behalf of the World Health Organization. The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) now classifies the weed-killer as “probably carcinogenic to humans” after the panel of experts reviewed all of the publicly available research. Following up on the action by the WHO, the state of California is currently in the process of listing glyphosate as a known human carcinogen under its Prop 65 law.
As the paper notes, recent studies have made the connection between glyphosate exposure and a number of serious health effects beyond cancer, including the degeneration of the liver and kidney, as well as non-Hodgkin lymphoma, among others.
Benbrook’s paper isn’t the first to call attention to this. According to National Geographic, “introduced commercially by Monsanto in 1974, glyphosate kills weeds by blocking proteins essential to plant growth…more than 1.4 billion pounds (are) applied per year. Its use skyrocketed after seeds were genetically engineered to tolerate the chemical…. Between 1987 and 2012, annual U.S. farm use grew from less than 11 million pounds to nearly 300 million pounds.
Glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s signature product Roundup, was initially used as a descaling agent to clean out calcium and other mineral deposits in pipes and boilers of residential and commercial hot water systems by the Stauffer Chemical Company. It has been banned in the Netherlands.
Remarkably, 74 percent of all the glyphosate sprayed on crops since the mid-1970s has been applied in just the last 10 years as the amount of genetically engineered corn and soybean crops have exploded on both U.S. and global croplands.
First sold commercially in 1974, the use of glyphosate by farmers was limited since this active ingredient kills both weeds and agronomic crops. The development and approval of genetically engineered (GE), herbicide-tolerant (HT) crops dramatically changed how farmers could apply glyphosate. Starting in 1996, GE-HT versions of three major crops – cotton, corn, and soybeans – were marketed by Monsanto and other seed companies, making it possible for farmers to apply glyphosate for months after crops had started growing.
The use and efficacy of HT technology, particularly in its first decade, led to rapid and near-universal adoption in the U.S., Canada, Argentina, Brazil, and a half-dozen other countries. As a result, glyphosate use by farmers in the U.S. rose from 12.5 million pounds in 1995 to 250 million pounds in 2014, a 20-fold increase. Globally, total use rose from 112.6 million pounds in 1995 to 1.65 billion in 2014, a 14.6-fold jump. Not surprisingly, farms reacted to this sudden and increased use: super weeds, weeds that no longer respond to the application of Roundup and glyphosate, are now found across over half of the states in the U.S.
“My hope is that this paper will stimulate more research on glyphosate use, and human and environmental exposure patterns, to increase the chance that scientists will quickly detect any problems that might be triggered, or made worse by glyphosate exposure,” Benbrook added.
“This report makes it clear that the use of glyphosate combined with the dominance of genetically engineered crops has produced an looming public health threat.
Glyphosate is not included in the U.S. government’s testing of food for pesticide residues or the monitoring of chemicals in human blood and tissues.
U.S. and around the world,” said Mary Ellen Kustin, a senior policy analyst at EWG. “Farmers have sprayed billions of pounds of a chemical now considered a probable human carcinogen over the past decade. Spraying has increased to multiple times a year recently on the majority of U.S. cropland. The sheer volume of use of this toxic weed- killer is a clear indication that this chemical dependency is a case of farming gone wrong.”
This is Benbrook’s second paper published in Environmental Sciences Europe. The first, “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years,” was published in September 2012 and remains the most heavily accessed paper in the 25-year history of Environmental Sciences Europe, with over 230,000 reviews.
###
References: Benbrook, C. Trends in glyphosate herbicide use in the United States and globally. Environmental Sciences Europe (2016, 28:28) DOI ???
Benbrook, C. “Impacts of genetically engineered crops on pesticide use in the U.S. – the first sixteen years.” Environmental Sciences Europe (2012, Vol. 24:24. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-24. Access full text at: http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/24
Both reports are part of Springer’s open access publishing portfolio. SpringerOpen and is freely available online.
The Huffington Post recently wrote a damning article about DuPont’s role in hiding the horrible health impacts of Teflon, a common material used in pots and pans across the United States. And with the flurry of press that resulted from uncovering this truth, there was one fact left consumers looking for safer, non-toxic cookware options. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly every American has this toxic substance in their body, including infants and children.
And now we want solutions, we want to make small but meaningful choices in our homes to protect ourselves. The good news is we can. Each dollar we spend is a dollar towards our new, safer economy.
Finding Safer Pots and Pans
Calphalon (Jury is out)
The popular company Caphalon introduced a “safe” non-stick pan in 2013, that uses ceramic rather than PFCs (a good thing). What concerns me about this brand however, is their website states definitively that non-stick coatings (PFCs) are safe and goes as far to say that the FDA and EPA have raised no concerns about the coatings. Here’s the kicker: the EPA and FDA don’t have the authority to ban or regulate these chemicals under our broken federal laws and there are endless studies showing harm from PFOA and similar chemicals. I emailed the company asking about the safety of their non-stick pans and they went as far to say that PFOA coatings on pans were of no concern. So at this time I cannot confidently recommend Calphalon pots and pans.
Unidentified Non-Stick Coatings (Avoid)
Some other brands that claim to have safe non-stick pans are using similar fluorotelomer coatings, raising red flags for health and safety. Make sure your non-stick pans don’t use fluorotelomer coatings of any form, and encourage companies to fully disclose all of the chemicals used to make their non-stick coatings. If a company fails to tell you what is in their product, consider that a red flag and move on.
Ceramic finish non-stick, Lead-free ceramic and Enamel-based cookware (Safer)
All of these are safer options, but have some downsides. Debra Lynn Dadd wrote up a good description of the difference between some of these pans; the main difference is that the ceramic non-stick finish wears off after a couple of years and needs to be replaced (a hassle and has an environmental footprint).
Stainless steel, Cast iron (Safer/Best Options)
Based on the best available information, simple stainless steel and cast iron cookware is your best bet. Stainless steel is easy to use, lasts a lifetime, is non-toxic, has no finishes and is relatively non-stick if you use the right oils and fats when cooking. Cast iron is even better for non-stick alternatives because a well-seasoned pan can be just as effective (if not more) than Teflon, minus all the health effects.
I thought perhaps the anti-GMO crowd was erring just a bit on the side of tree huggery.
After spending approximately 100 hours reading about GMO from all points of view, watching endless documentaries and reading dozens upon dozens of peer-reviewed studies on issues directly related to GMO, I am here to say this: I was wrong.
I now personally believe that the wholesale introduction of genetically modified foods into the human diet ranks with global warming in terms of its importance for the human race.
Before I explain, let’s start with some definitions.
“GMO” stands for “genetically modified organism.” It means genes from one species have been spliced into an entirely different species, and that’s what makes it fundamentally different from “breeding” (i.e., crossing a Golden Retriever with a poodle to get a Goldendoodle). Genetic modification is a whole other beast.
“They’re putting spider genes into goats so that their milk will have spider proteins,” explains Jeffrey Smith, founding executive director of The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) and the maker of an acclaimed film on GMOs called Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives (IRT, 2012). “Cow genes [are being inserted into] pigs so that their hides will be more like cowhide, human genes into corn to make spermicides.” (We’ll get to the spermicide-producing corn in a minute.)
All of this doesn’t just sound worrisome—it is worrisome, and here’s why.
The Food-Gut Connection
Let’s start with the gut, the primary interface between food and the rest of your body. The gut wall is a complex system of defenses against unfamiliar, and potentially damaging, compounds. You can think of it as a tightly woven mesh fence whose openings are just large enough to allow small, friendly, recognizable breakdownproducts of digested food (like amino acids or glucose) to pass through and enter the bloodstream. Simultaneously, the gut wall is charged with preventing stuff that doesn’t belong in the bloodstream from getting in.
And this is where it gets tricky.
When the body’s defense system doesn’t recognize a molecule as a friendly citizen of the body, its very first response is inflammation.
The gut is our biggest immune system organ. When those tight junctures in the gut wall weaken and allow food particles to pass directly into the bloodstream—a condition known as increased intestinal permeability, or “leaky gut syndrome”—all hell can break loose. It’s the equivalent of unidentified flying objects getting into the Pentagon. The Pentagon assumes the unidentified invaders mean us no good and start firing full blast. This is exactly what the immune system does when it’s faced with unidentified—
and potentially toxic—molecules.
When the body’s defense system doesn’t recognize a molecule as a friendly citizen of the body, its very first response is inflammation. The more the gut wall is weakened by these inflammatory responses, the more “foreign invaders” get through its border. It’s a vicious and exhausting cycle that ultimately leaves the poor immune system overwhelmed.
Martha Grout, MD, medical director of the Arizona Center for Advanced Medicine, puts it this way: “Many of the diseases that we deal with—in fact, most of the diseases that we deal with—[begin with] inflammation. For many of them, the source of that inflammation is the gut, which, of course, is the main interface between the body and food of any kind including GMO food.”
With GMO food, you are combining genes in a manner that does not exist in nature and putting them into food where they ultimately come in contact with the gut wall. Our immune system looks at these molecules and says, “I’ve never seen this.” So, like the Pentagon, it makes a quick (and wise) decision to attack. And this creates an inflammatory response, essentially setting the stage for a host of conditions, none of them good.
In fact, numerous gut diseases have increased exponentially since GMOs were widely introduced into the food supply including ulcerative colitis, chronic constipation, gastrointestinal infections, Crohn’s disease, and gastroesophageal reflux (GERD). “But inflammation goes way beyond just gut disorders,” points out Grout. “I think we should look at allergies, autoimmune disease, heart disease, kidney disease, diabetes—anything that’s related to inflammation.”
The arguments for GMO are basically economic. Advocates point out that using genetic modification can reduce pesticide use and benefit farmers. It can increase yields. It may reduce energy use and benefit the environment. And it may make it possible to feed the rapidly expanding population of our planet. Indeed, much of this might be theoretically possible. But just as nuclear energy can be used for noble purposes, it can also be used to make a bomb that can destroy the world as we know it. And while the science of genetic modification may ultimately be used for the greater good, it has mostly been used to produce crops like genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans, which now constitute 94% of the soybeans in the United States, or the aforementioned corn, 93% of which is genetically engineered to produce its own toxic insecticides. “The very process of genetic engineering produces unpredicted side effects,” says Smith.
Roundup Ready: What Does It Mean?
The ability of glyphosate to mess with that delicate balance of bacteria so needed for optimal health is something that should be taken very seriously.
“Weed management is the number-one preoccupation of the farmers, at least in the developed world,” says Thierry Vrain, PhD, in his TEDx lecture on the future of agriculture and GMO foods. The most common way to manage weeds is with herbicides, the most popular and well known of which is Monsanto’s Roundup. When it was discovered that certain bacteria were impervious to Roundup, Monsanto took the genes from that bacteria that allowed them to survive Roundup and began inserting them into soybeans. The result was a genetically modified soybean variety known as “Roundup Ready Soybeans” that was specifically engineered to survive massive sprayings of Roundup. The main ingredient in Roundup is a broad-spectrum herbicide known as glyphosate. Glyphosate is used to control unwanted plant life—weeds, grasses, basically anything that competes with commercial crops. There’s been vigorous debate about the safety of glyphosate ever since it was first registered for use in the US in 1974.
According to studies presented by Dr. Vrain at the 2014 annual conference of the American College of Nutrition, glyphosate is an antibiotic, killing some of the best bacteria in the human microbiome, including Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus. The health of the microbiome, which contains over 1,000 different species of bacteria, is one of the hottest topics in nutritional medicine right now, and for good reason. It’s been found to influence everything from immune response to obesity to depression. (A 2014 study published in Cell showed that merely eradicating four of those types of bacteria—Lactobacillus, Allobaculum, Rikenellacae, and Candidatus Arthromitus—caused obesity in lab animals.) Stephanie Seneff, a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, published a paper suggesting that glyphosate may explain the link between a damaged microbiome and gluten intolerance.
The health of the microbiome is the reason we’re told to eat yogurt with its rich array of beneficial bacteria called probiotics. And the ability of glyphosate to mess with that delicate balance of bacteria so needed for optimal health is something that should be taken very seriously. One alarming study, published in Current Microbiology, showed that glyphosate kills bacteria even at the incredibly tiny concentration of one part per million. And that’s not all. In a 2013 study published in Entropy, glyphosate was shown to suppress enzymes in the liver (known as the cytochrome P450 enzymes), meaning it compromises detoxification in the body. The authors of the paper demonstrating this effect said that “glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins,” adding that “negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body.” They caution that the consequences of this inflammation are “most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.”
According to a 2009 study published in Toxicology, glyphosate has been shown to be an endocrine disrupter in human cells. (Translation: It screws around with your hormones.) Glyphosate changes human cell permeability, induces human breast cancer cell growth via estrogen receptors, amplifies toxicity and accelerates cell proliferation (i.e., cancer) at tiny concentrations (measured in parts per billion to parts per trillion).
In fairness, not all studies on glyphosate have been damning. One published research review in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology gave glyphosate a clean bill of health, saying that no “significant toxicity” occurred in the studies they reviewed, that there was no “convincing” evidence for DNA damage, and that glyphosate does not appear to be carcinogenic. (Keep in mind that most of the damage that’s been demonstrated in the research is subtle and slow to develop. A three-month study looking for “acute toxicity” in glyphosate might find none but might be missing the insidious, metastasizing damage that it does to critical systems in the body (like the gut wall and the microbiome) over many years.
But the studies showing that glyphosate is safe were all done on pure glyphosate, not on Roundup, the actual herbicide. Dr. Vrain notes that while glyphosate has “no acute toxicity,” the actual Roundup herbicide contains a lot more than just glyphosate. About 15% of the actual Roundup formula is an extremely toxic chemical called polyoxyethylene amine (POEA).
Roundup itself—complete with its POEA component—was tested by researchers and found to induce both cell death in the testicles of animals as well as a 35% reduction in testosterone levels at a level of one part per million.
Still other research showed that glyphosate is toxic to human placental cells in concentrations lower than those found in usual agricultural use—but worse, the effect increases with the addition of the other stuff found in Roundup (like, presumably, POEA). The researchers concluded that “endocrine and toxic effects of Roundup—not just glyphosate—can be observed in mammals,” adding that the presence of the other components in Roundup significantly increase the likelihood that this stuff will stay in your system. “Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient (glyphosate),” they conclude.
Getting Back to That Corn
The pro-GMO industry argues that Bt is completely harmless to humans and animals and says it only affects insects. But studies in the last few years have shown that to be far from the truth.
One of the most effective biological insecticides for corn is a soil-dwelling bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, also known as Bt, or the Bt toxin. If you’re a farmer, you spray this stuff on corn, and boom, that’s the end of your pest problem. The Bt toxin dissolves in the gut of the insect, attacks its gut cells, punching holes in the lining (talk about leaky gut!), and causes death within a couple of days.
In the 1990s, concern started to grow about the vast amount of insecticide being sprayed on corn, so clever scientists came up with a novel idea: implanting genes from the Bt toxin into the corn itself. The corn wouldn’t require spraying since it was engineered to produce its very own Bt toxin the minute an insect bit into it. Genetically modified corn (93% of all corn produced in the US) is now regulated by the EPA under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
The pro-GMO industry argues that Bt is completely harmless to humans and animals and says it only affects insects. But studies in the last few years have shown that to be far from the truth.
A 2012 article in the Journal of Applied Toxicology found that far from being innocuous, the modified Bt insecticidal toxins that are produced by GMO plants are “not inert in human cells.” What’s more, the Bt proteins that are part and parcel of GMO crops are different from those naturally produced in the soil. “The effects of these modifications have not been addressed,” writes Eva Sirinathsinghji, PhD, whose degree, incidentally, is in neurogenetics.
Sirinathsinghji also points out that Bt toxin kills human kidney cells, causes infertility in rats, and, in one study published in Reproductive Toxicology, was found in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and in the umbilical cord blood of 80% of their babies. “These studies,” she says, “make it urgent that the health impact of Bt proteins in GM crops be thoroughly investigated.”
A Look At the Other Side
In an attempt to give a fair hearing to the other side of the GMO argument, I Googled “GMO foods are safe,” figuring that there must be some really good studies showing their safety or the FDA would never have permitted them into the food supply. I was extremely naive on that count. The FDA actually requires no safety studies for GMO foods and leaves it up to the companies that produce it to confirm that they’re safe. In the 1990s, the FDA established the Plant Biotechnology Consultation Program to evaluate the safety and lawfulness of GMO plant varieties, but it is voluntary for GMO plant producers to take part in. Basically, we have to rely on Monsanto’s reassurances that their studies show that these new GMO crops are safe, and that the massive spraying of our crops with Roundup—and the insect-killing toxins in genetically modified corn—pose absolutely no threat to humans. Good luck with that one.
In searching for positive research on the safety of GMO foods, I was continually referred to articles by one Jon Entine, who is a senior fellow at the World Food Center Institute for Food and Agricultural Literacy at the University of California-Davis. In his much-discussed Forbes article, “The Debate About GMO Safety is Over, Thanks to New Trillion-Meal Study,” Entine says there are “more than 2,000 studies documenting that biotechnology does not pose an unusual threat to human health and genetically modified foods are as safe or safer than conventional or organic foods.” His tone is dismissive and condescending to those who question their safety.
But here’s the thing: In the course of my career, I’ve run into more than a few of these debunkers of junk science. At first, they seem like the soul of scientific reasonableness, but when you follow the money, their claim to scientific objectivity suddenly becomes squishy. (In my book The Great Cholesterol Myth [Fair Winds Press, 2012], co-author Stephen Sinatra and I pointed out that among the original nine members of the National Cholesterol Education Program panel that was charged with making new recommendations for cholesterol levels in 2004, eight of them had financial ties to the very drug companies that would reap immediate benefits from lowered cholesterol targets.)
Vested Interest
Those of us who were around in the 1950s and 1960s remember the lengths to which the tobacco lobby went to trumpet studies showing that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer.
Remember that every major corporation with an image to manage—think oil companies, drug companies, food companies—has millions of dollars to spend on marketing, and a big part of that marketing is making sure there are scientific studies to “support” the safety and efficacy of the products they sell. The Corn Refiners Association points to studies showing high-fructose corn syrup is safe, and the dairy industry spent millions fighting labels that would identify whether or not milk contained bovine growth hormone.
Those of us who were around in the 1950s and 1960s remember the lengths to which the tobacco lobby went to trumpet studies showing that cigarette smoking did not cause cancer. (Did such studies exist? Sure. All you had to do was design a study on new smokers that lasted about three months. Almost no cancers would have shown up, and, if you were a cigarette manufacturer, you could point to the study showing that cigarettes don’t cause cancer.)
And not much has changed since then. Today, companies who by all scientific consensus are operating in a way that is clearly increasing greenhouse gases and impacting global warming in a big way all have access to scientists who will argue that global warming is a hoax, or, at the very least, that it’s not caused by man.
Back to Jon Entine. Entine is supported by The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), which describes itself as “a consumer education consortium concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health.” Sounds pretty noble, right? But according to SourceWatch (sourcewatch.org), a website operated by the nonprofit The Center for Media and Democracy and dedicated to exposing front groups, industry-funded organizations and “PR spinners,” the American Council is almost wholly funded by big agri-businesses and trade groups. SourceWatch points out that over the years, ACSH has defended DDT, asbestos, Agent Orange and many common pesticides.
Further compounding the problem of getting honest, unbiased science is the phenomenon of the fox guarding the henhouse. The people regulating these things are often the same people who previously worked for the very companies they are regulating, and these folks move back and forth between government and industry with breathtaking regularity. Indeed, a cursory look at the appointees throughout the first Bush administration, the Clinton administration, the second Bush administration and the Obama administration reveal a host of appointees and FDA officials who previously worked for Monsanto. Critics of GMO point to the case of Michael Taylor, who went from being an attorney for the FDA to vice president for public policy for Monsanto and bounced back and forth between the two from 1976 to 2010. President Obama even appointed him food safety czar, a move that engendered op-ed pieces like the one in The Huffington Post entitled, “You’re Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It’s Not So.” With foxes like this guarding the henhouse, activists can be forgiven for wondering if the playing field is in fact a level one.
So What Can You Do?
Mandatory labeling seems like it should be a no-brainer. A strong majority of Americans favor labeling of GMO foods, a practice that is already mandatory in Europe.
It’s a good question, and there aren’t easy answers. You can start by doing your own investigation, starting with some of the research quoted in this article. Read everything you can, watch the documentaries, listen to both sides and see what you think. Maybe you’ll come to a very different conclusion than I’ve come to. Maybe you’ll think that all this worry about GMO is for nothing. Or maybe you’ll become so angry that you yourself will become an activist. Personally, I’ve completely cut out soybeans and corn (unless they’re organic) and I try whenever possible to buy food that is only non-GMO certified (which is a voluntary act on the brand’s behalf and is not always easy to do). And I’ll vote for mandatory labeling anytime it makes its way to the ballot.
Mandatory labeling seems like it should be a no-brainer. A strong majority of Americans favor labeling of GMO foods, a practice that is already mandatory in Europe. “The Europeans offer a very different perspective from the one adopted by American authorities,” writes Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the public policy organization Demos. “The Europeans take what has been called the ‘precautionary’ approach, an approach that strongly resembles American views on licensing new drugs and medical treatments.”
Indeed, as Washington Post reporter Michael Birnbaum has written, “… US regulators tend to rely on short-term scientific studies about safety to give new technologies a green light. European regulators tend to be far more cautious, focusing more on what they might not know than on what they do know.”
Although a majority of Americans do in fact want labeling, getting a labeling bill passed is no easy task. As of this writing, 20 state assemblies have presented bills that would require GMO foods to be truthfully labeled, allowing consumers to know exactly what they’re buying. At the very least, this seems fair. Consumers would not unknowingly be purchasing GMO products and would be able to make informed decisions about what they’re feeding their families. It’s important to remember that the campaign to defeat these bills is being largely funded by one of the biggest agri-business companies in the world. In my home state of California, they blanketed the airwaves with ads that managed to convince a majority that labeling GMO foods would accomplish absolutely nothing except to make food more expensive. The bill was defeated.
Three states—Connecticut, Maine and Vermont—have passed laws for GMO labeling; however, Connecticut and Maine have provisions in their laws that prevent them from being implemented unless other northeastern states approve similar laws. Vermont’s law is set to go into effect in 2016.
The campaign to sell GMO to us is predicated on the notion that there is no real difference between “natural” (non-GMO) foods and their genetically modified counterparts. This shifts attention away from the one real reason people buy organic food.
Remember, despite efforts to convince you that non-GMO food is “no better” nutritionally than conventionally grown (GMO) food, the truth is we don’t buy organic food for what’s in it. We buy it for what’s not in it.
The basic, founding principle of medicine is, “First, do no harm.” And with the long-term effects of genetically modifying foods wholly unknown, I vote for erring on the side of caution. The research may not yet be definitive, and the “evidence” may be circumstantial, but I for one would prefer to opt out of what may well be the biggest—and perhaps most dangerous—nutritional experiment in history.
What does “Non-GMO Project Verified” mean?
The Non-GMO Project is a nonprofit organization that offers third-party verification and labeling for non-GMO food and products. If you see the “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal on a food product, it means that the product has gone through an extensive verification process. The project has rigorous standards, which includes ongoing testing of all at-risk ingredients.
While some products may say “GMO-Free” on the label, that claim is not legally or scientifically defensible due to limits on testing methodology and risks of contamination. The Non-GMO Project Verified seal represents the best available guarantee that a product is truly free of GMOs. It’s not totally infallible, but it’s the best standard we currently have.
Freaky Factoid: Did you know that Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is widely used in organic farming? The organic crowd loves it because it’s a naturally occurring pesticide. Problem is, the Bt toxins produced by genetically modified plants are considerably more potent than the Bt found in nature. The Bt that’s sprayed on plants can be washed off by rain or cleaning in your sink. The Bt genetically engineered into the corn can’t be washed away and is eaten with every bite.
GMO: OMG
The Non-GMO Project lists the following crops in commercial production as “high-risk.” The percentages reflect how much of these crops contains GMO.
Alfalfa (no precise data)
Canola (90% of US crop)
Corn (93% of US crop)
Papaya (most of Hawaiian crop;
no precise data)
Soy (94% of US crop)
Sugar beets (99% of US crop)
Zucchini and yellow summer squash
(no precise data)
As consumers, we think about what we eat, but not always about what we put on our skin and how the ingredients can get into us.
I never thought about it. Not at all.
At least not until I had a child with a food allergy.
I can’t remember the mom that mentioned it to me ten years ago (she deserves angel wings), but she said: “Don’t forget to look for things like peanut oil in lotions.”
It had never crossed my mind.
As I started learning about our skin and its ability to absorb (quickly!) what we put on it, I learned that our skin is our largest organ.
My thought was: If I’m not willing to spread this on my lungs, kidney and heart, why in the world would I spread this on my largest organ, my skin? And what am I putting onto the kids?
And suddenly, I found myself reading more than just the labels on the side of our food.
In the United States alone 80,000 chemicals were approved for use by the TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act) and yet only 200 of the toxins were tested for human safety. Each year the list of chemicals change. There was a European study done that proves mothers pass chemicals to their babies via pregnancy and breast milk. Newborn baby cord blood and amniotic fluid had multiple non-natural toxins detected in it, as many as 240 chemicals in cord blood have been found! That is just brutal to hear as a mom.
More than 120 of the chemicals were from toxins in food, personal care, household and environmental products.
Thankfully, just as we have the clean food movement, there are companies cleaning up cosmetics and personal care products. There are a lot of amazing stories, but probably none like that of a baby named Molly.
Molly changed the world. She was born to a mom of three healthy kids who was a pediatric nurse. But Molly was a stillbirth. She never took a breath. And it launched her mom into asking the most important of questions: why?
As Molly’s mom began to learn about every day cleaning and personal care products, she was stunned.
For example, detergent ingredients like ionic surfactants, are the most persistent in the environment and change the sex of our fish and Nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPE’s). These detergent ingredients have been banned in Canada and Europe, imitate the hormone estrogen in our bodies which affect our health and fetal development. These chemicals are found in our drinking water because they are not completely biodegradable. So Molly’s mom decided to create Laundry Powder and other household products that are safe for humans. Molly’s little footprints are on their website and all of our packaging to remind you that their products are safe for even your tiniest family member.
Seriously, can you imagine putting love into action like that?
As Molly’s mom shared her story, I l was just blown away. I learned that about the top 3 allergens in detergents. How it shows up in kids (or adults?). The irritation—a red, itchy rash usually occurs right away—as soon as your child puts on a wool sweater, for instance. Or allergic contact dermatitis which also appears as a red, itchy rash, but usually not with immediate contact. If your child has a true allergy to laundry detergent or fabric softener, you may not notice redness or itching for up to a week.
Top 3 Allergens
Sodium Lauryl Sulfate
This chemical breaks up the layer of oil on your skin that keeps it from drying out.
Fragrance
Many fragrances are hard to detect as an allergy because the products don’t tell you exactly what the ingredients are. It is still one of the most common contact allergens in soap even though it doesn’t directly contribute to cleansing.
Coconut Diethanolamide
It is actually more common for people to be allergic to coconut through touch than it is through ingestion. In detergents it is similar to sodium lauryl sulfate and breaks down the oil on your skin.
Today, the number of children with allergies and asthma continue to skyrocket. A life threatening allergic reaction sends someone to the E.R. once every three minutes.
So what if we removed even just some of these chemicals the way they have been banned in other countries? Wouldn’t our kids be better off?
And if one mom of three who lost a baby can man up and do this, make a safer product, can’t our regulatory bodies insist that the personal care industry do it, too?
I am just so completely blown away by what Molly’s mom has done, and I hope Molly’s footprints reach the halls of Congress and that in our lifetime, we see an update to that antiquated chemical legislation. With 80,000 chemicals in our every day products, we have to test more than just 200.
For the sake of our health, the health of our children and the health of our country, we have to clean up these products.
[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]You will never see this Coca-Cola commerical on TV. But if Coca-Cola had to tell the truth, this is what it would look like.
Obesity is one of the nation’s biggest issues, and sodas have played an important role in it. Last year was tough on soda sales, which declined for the 10th straight year as consumers favor the healthier image of other drinks.
Consumers are waking up. According to the New York Times, the drop in soda consumption represents the single largest change in the American diet in the last decade. Over the last 20 years, sales of full-calorie soda in the United States have plummeted by more than 25 percent.
As we begin to see these products for what they are—liquid candy bars—it’s easier to understand their impact.
If we had ever seen videos like this, we would have learned about this a lot sooner. Please share it to help protect the health of your loved ones.
Today we grapple with an abundant and adulterated food supply compared to just a couple generations ago with more consumers looking to purchase whole foods and eating as close to the earth as they can.
They bank on clean eating to minimize risk of disease, as well as support their health and quality of life. Nutrition food labels help consumers assess everything from calories to carbohydrates, ingredient lists determine if a food contains harmful additives or not.
As a result, a whole new product line known as “Free from foods” draws in consumers with the promise to reduce exposure to “generally regarded as safe” (GRAS) food additives that are increasingly called into question. Partially hydrogenated fats have already been targeted, and emerging research suggests that emulsifiers and artificial sweeteners are known to disrupt gut microbes.
HOW WE GROW FOOD MATTERS
Once consumers learned to pay attention to nutrition, they soon learned they also needed to pay attention to how food is grown. Consumers shop to minimize their family’s exposure to pesticide and other chemical residues from intensive chemical farming. Consumers also choose locally grown and sustainably grown foods, most typically to protest the environmental harm of industrial agriculture.
While consumers allocate more food dollars to purchase “Free from” and organic food segment in the marketplace. they are learning that even that may not be enough.
THE BODY BURDEN OF ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS
Scientists estimate that up to ninety five percent of the substances known as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) enter in the body via the food supply. Some POPS are known as endocrine disruptors which disrupt critical metabolic processes. The presence of endocrine disruptors in the food supply is a rather new phenomena, reflecting the impact of industrialization, the advent of the plastics industry, and current farming practices.
These agents are intentionally and unintentionally released into the atmosphere by industrial processes combustion, runoff, and direct discharge. They are transported and can be measured in the air, water and soil. Plants take up the contaminants and animals consume the plants.
In this way, the chemicals bio-accumulate up the food chain, with the greatest concentration typically found in fat stores of animals and humans eating at the top. The range and total amount of these chemicals accumulate in all living organisms is known as the “body burden.”
ENDOCRINE DISRUPTORS IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH
A 2012 WHO document regarding endocrine disruptors reports, “Close to 800 chemicals are known or suspected to be capable of interfering with hormone receptors, hormone synthesis or hormone conversion.” While in 2002 the authors of the report claimed that there was little evidence of harm to human health, the 2012 updated reports states that “data linking exposures to EDCs and human diseases are much stronger now than in 2002…”
Scientists measure body burden in infants and adults and they assess contaminants in breast milk and placental cord blood.
We all carry a body burden.
A wide range of conditions and diseases link to exposure to pesticides and herbicides used in commercial and home applications, plastics, and other chemical compounds. I prepared this slide for a presentation at the California Dietetic Association in April, 2015, and the list is by no means exhaustive.
Despite the ominous implications, governments and health care institutions exhibit a wide range of responses. Linda Birnbaum, current director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, as well as the National Toxicology Program, shared how the Swedish government responded to increasing levels of contaminants in breast milk at a conference which introduced me to the concept of endocrine disruptors in the food supply at Loma Linda University in 2002.
The Swedes had incredibly collected and maintained a breast milk bank over decades. Most endocrine disruptors are lipophilic, which means that they preferentially accumulate in fat stores. At 50% fat content, breast milk is an ideal depot to measure bio-accumulation. As scientists and government officials noted the escalating concentration of contaminants in the collected breast milk, they banned the offending agents and within 5 years a sharp decrease could be measured.
Unfortunately, both our federal and state government regulatory agencies continue to dither with the data today. They often fail to enact materially significant changes until communities and environmental agencies press for action in the courts. However, there seems to be some momentum to change this dismal state of affairs.
California banned the use of fire retardants known as PBDEs in clothing, textiles and furniture in 2003, with activation in 2006. In 2014 California regulators also proposed heavy restrictions on the agricultural use of the pesticide Choripyrifos. By October of 2015 the Environmental Protection Agency also called for zero tolerance of residues of Choripyrifos in food, a pesticide linked to neurological damage in farm workers, as reported in the Los Angeles Times.
Thankfully in 2012 many scientists called for “Fundamental changes in chemical testing and safety… needed to protect human health,” even as Big Chem characterizes their findings as sensational science, and has historically blocked the kind of restrictions seen in Canada and Europe. Communities, watchdog agencies, and consumers need to stay vigilant. Each of us votes with our dollars, so continue to purchase carefully.
Service to our country was instilled in us at a young age. It runs deep in my family: my dad, my uncles, both grandfathers and even my mom all served our country (she was in Vietnam as a nurse with Save the Children).
So I can’t let today pass without a thank you to our nation’s veterans.
I think about the sacrifices that my grandmothers made: one held three jobs while raising four boys while her husband was away. The other sent her husband off to the World War, where my grandfather served as a clergyman to the soldiers.
My grandmother was pregnant at the time, and my grandfather didn’t meet my mom until he returned home when she was three years old. It is hard to imagine sacrifices like that, but we would not be here without them.
My dad has always worn his patriotism on his sleeve. It’s how we were raised—to raise the bar a little bit higher on ourselves, to be the best that we could be, to make family and our country proud, to serve.
The courage of our military and the sacrifices of those families is something that we can never take for granted. Those liberties and freedoms were hard earned.
Right now, our children, should they take the field, would require epipens, asthma inhalers and insulin injections to accompany them. They are our future military. We have to fight for their freedoms, too.
No one is talking about this in the presidential debate, but a country that defends the health of its citizens, its children, also defends its economy, innovation, its liberties and prosperities.
Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost that. Our kids are not healthy enough to take the field.
My dad, uncles and grandfathers bravely fought for the health of our country. As we do our part, bowing our heads in gratitude for those that came before us, protecting these liberties that we hold so dear, our generation faces a unique challenge to our freedoms:
Are we doing everything that we can today to protect the health and safety of our children, so that they can protect the health, safety and liberties of our country in the years to come?
We can not afford to get this wrong. We owe it to our military, our veterans, our economy, our families and our future.
What does the World Health Organization’s classification of processed meat as a Class 1 carcinogens actually mean for you? What you need to know to eat safely & sound smart.
1. How much bacon is too much?
You would have to eat 50g of processed meats every day to increase your risk of colorectal cancer by 18%. That’s 6 pieces of bacon, 2 slices of Canadian bacon, 1 hotdog or 2 slices of ham.
2. How many cancer deaths per years could be connected to processed meat?
According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Let’s put those in context, there are:
1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking
600,000 per year due to alcohol consumption
more than 200,000 per year due to air pollution.
3. Why are processed meats carcinogenic?
Research isn’t definitive, but the main culprits seem to be chemicals called N-nitroso compounds.
These come from Haem, which is in the meat itself, as well as ingredients used to preserve meat—such as nitrates.
When broken down in the gut, Haem and Nitrates form a family of chemicals called N-nitroso compounds.
These may damage the cells that line the bowel, so other cells need to replicate to heal. This “extra” replication increases the likelihood of mistakes in the DNA—which can lead to cancer.
4. How can you protect yourself?
Buy nitrate-free processed meats as an alternative. Also limit the intake of processed meats with celery juice, which also happens to be high in carcinogenic natural nitrates.
Get screened! Colorectal cancer screening is believed to be a form of cancer prevention, not just early detection.
Take the guesswork out of finding the right products for you, your tastes and preferences with Ingredient1.
As consumers, we think about what we eat, but not always about what we put on our skin and how the ingredients can get into us.
