In November 2013, I received an invitation to speak at Bloomberg in New York City.
The invitation meant so much. I’d obviously used Bloomberg as an analyst when I’d worked on the equity desk, but it meant more because of someone I’d met who worked there as one of our country’s lead investigative journalists.
He had been an incredible supporter in the early years of my work. We related on Enron, which he had covered as a journalist and which had recruited me out of business school, and on collateralized debt and commodity obligations, fancy names for paper contracts that banks could make a lot of money on.
In the months leading up to the event (I was billed as their second quarter speaker for their speaker series) I held my breath. Why? Because there have been incredible invitations in the almost nine years of this work that have never materialized, from speaking on national television shows to debating the National Cattleman’s Association. Producers will call, having booked segments, scheduled travel, previously unable to contain their excitement, saying they are so sorry, but…
Would this one? Things had been put in place, dates locked in, we would see.
So when I took the stage earlier this week, I felt all of that and then some. As I looked out into the sea of faces, all I could think was that I was supposed to be in that audience, in the financial world. It was everything I had trained myself to do. I had graduated as the top woman in my class in business school, on a full scholarship, recruited by Exxon, Enron and the banking world. It was the trajectory I had chosen and worked hard on. But then life had different plans.
Speaking at Bloomberg that day brought all of it back, and it reminded me of two memories. The first was back in November 1999, on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, meeting with some of our traders. They told me to run a trade, I said “Sure!” handed them my jacket and took off. When I got back, they just stared, as my jacket had hidden a 6 month pregnant belly. It was too funny, and they apologized for weeks.
The second memory was of being in Bloomberg’s tower five years ago, meeting with one of our country’s best investigative reporters. His name was Mark Pittman, and he was a bear of a guy, smoker, rode motorcycles and talked non stop about his wife and girls and the chickens they were raising in their backyard. He fully understood the scope of this, he was such an ass kicker, and at the time, he was leading Bloomberg in suing the Fed for full disclosure over the banking crisis of 2008. He died later that year.
It meant a lot to be there.
We need to finance a smarter food system, one that feeds all families clean and safe food, not processed foods that have been loaded with synthetic ingredients meant to mimic real ones. We spend more than any other country in the world on health care and disease management and less than almost any other country on food.
Demand for organic food is growing, yet the U.S. farmland for organic food is shrinking. We are sourcing our organic food from other countries.
We are smarter than this and can build a food system that meets the needs of 21st century families, one that makes clean and safe food affordable to all Americans.
It is going to take all of us, families, farmers and the financial world. The burden of disease is burdening our families, our country and our economy. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
Leveraging our collective talents and skills, we can build a smarter system. The legacy is ours to create.
Written in memory of Mark Pittman for his girls and wife. He will always be remembered.
If you had no idea that the caramel color in sodas might be linked to cancer, you’re not alone.
In recent tests of sodas and other soft drinks, varying levels of 4-methylimidazole (4-MeI), a potentially-carcinogenic chemical byproduct of the production of certain types of caramel color, were found in all of the samples that listed caramel color as an ingredient.
All samples.
Twelve brands of sodas and soft drinks from five manufacturers–including Coca-Cola, Pepsi and Goya–were tested. The full findings are featured online at www.ConsumerReports.org.
“We are concerned about both the levels of 4-MeI we found in many of the soft drinks tested and the variations observed among brands, especially given the widespread consumption of these types of beverages,” said Dr. Urvashi Rangan, a toxicologist and Executive Director of the Consumer Reports Food Safety and Sustainability Center.
“There is no reason why consumers need to be exposed to this avoidable and unnecessary risk that can stem from coloring food and beverages brown.”
So why in the world are we drinking it?
Caramel color is used in certain food and beverages as a coloring agent and should not be confused with real caramel. Some types of this artificial coloring contain 4-MeI which has been recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Stop. The International Agency for Research on Cancer recognizes this coloring agent as a possible human carcinogen. Given that the President’s Cancer Panel has reported that 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetime, shouldn’t we be taking some precautionary measures here?
According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of fifteen in the United States.
Should sodas carry warning labels?
While there are no existing federal limits on the amount of caramel color allowed in food and beverages, products sold in California that would expose consumers to more than 29 micrograms of 4-MeI in a day are supposed to carry a warning label under the state’s Proposition 65 law.
Between April and September 2013, Consumer Reports tested 81 cans and bottles of various popular brands of soft drinks purchased in stores in California and the New York metropolitan region. Twenty-nine additional samples were purchased and tested in December 2013.
In its tests, Consumer Reports found that 12-ounce single servings of two products purchased multiple times during an eight-month period in the state of California–Pepsi One and Malta Goya–exceeded 29 micrograms per can or bottle. While we cannot say that this violates California’s Prop 65, we believe that these levels are too high, and we have asked the California Attorney General to investigate.
After the scientists informed PepsiCo of the test results, the company issued a statement that said that Proposition 65 is based on per day exposure and not exposure per can. It also cited government consumption data that shows that the average amount of diet soda consumed by people who drink it is 100 milliliters per day, or less than a third of a 12-ounce can. For that reason, they believe that Pepsi One does not require cancer-risk warning labels—even if the amount of 4-MeI in a single can exceeds 29 micrograms.
“While our study is not big enough to recommend one brand over another, our results underscore two key points: The first is that it is indeed feasible to get down to lower and almost negligible levels of 4-MeI. And the second is that federal standards are required to compel manufacturers to minimize the creation of this potential carcinogen,” said Rangan.
Other findings from Consumer Reports’ tests include:
Coca-Cola products tested had the lowest levels of 4-MeI for products with caramel color listed on the label.
While Whole Foods’ Dr. Snap has a “natural” label, its products contained 4-MeI. All caramel colors are considered artificial.
What the Government Can Do
Consumers Union, the policy and action arm of Consumer Reports, has filed a petition with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Specifically, it is asking the FDA to:
Set a standard for limiting the formation of 4-MeI in those caramel colors that contain it (caramel III and IV).
Require labeling of specific caramel colors in the ingredient lists of food where it is added, so consumers can make informed choices. Not all caramel color contains 4-MeI, but consumers have no way of knowing. Europe already requires this type of labeling.
Bar products from carrying the “natural” label if they contain caramel colors.
What Consumers Can Do
At this point, the best consumers can do to avoid exposure to 4-MeI is to choose soft drinks and other foods that do not list “caramel color” or “artificial color” on their ingredient list.
Consumer Reports partnered with Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future to do the testing and the risk assessment. This project was made possible by donations to the Consumer Reports’ Food Safety and Sustainability Center.
Sometimes an idea comes along that is so obvious, you have to wonder why someone hasn’t done it sooner.
To those of us waking up to the realization that our food supply is now loaded with artificial ingredients that simply didn’t exist when we were kids, we are often confronted with a choice: pay more for foods free from these artificial ingredients, turn a blind eye or simply eat less of our childhood favorites.
But it turns out there is another option, thanks to an argument between a kid and his parents over a loaded bag of Halloween candy. It took a kid to ask “Why? Why do our favorite foods have to be so loaded with ingredients that are bad for us? And why do better for you foods have to cost more? Why does it have to be this way?”
This short video tells the story of how he aimed to find out.
As he reached out to learn more about some of his favorite foods, his mission resonated with a lot of people: Tom Brady, Gisele, Dr. Mark Hyman and Matt Damon. For example, did you know…
Artificial food dyes like Yellow 5, Red 40 and some other artificial additives in America’s leading candies carry warning labels in countries like the UK and France and in some cases not used at all by our American food companies overseas?
America’s favorite peanut butter cups contain TBHQ, a preservative which is also used as a corrosion inhibitor in biodiesel?
Candy can be made with lots less sugar rather than the high doses of high fructose corn syrup?
High fructose corn syrup is not only used to sweeten food but also packed into it to help preserve its shelf life?
A growing number of Americans think food should be made with real ingredients, affordable to all of us, and not be full of ingredients that are no longer used in other countries.
So for those of us who have family members who are not yet part of the food movement, who might roll their eyes or simply dismiss it as the concern of a parent, this just might change their minds because it meets you where you are. Sometimes, changing the food can be as simple as a candy bar.
And if you think about it, if this little company can do it with candy, we can do it with anything.
A just-released study shows that animals found in the US food supply are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified corn and soy.
It’s enough to make anyone paying attention to the genetically modified food debate sit up and take notice.
And it did, but it also brought another issue to light: the growing influence that funding ties are having over scientific studies and the journals they are published in.
The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in pigs fed genetically modified foods was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the genetically modified food diet. These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs. While 22% of male pigs and 42% of female pigs on the genetically modified food diet had this condition, when these pigs were compared to pigs on the control diet, it was found that male pigs were actually more strongly affected. While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely.
According to the researchers, these findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant. The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems.
Yes, the Journal of Organic Systems. A look at the journal’s sponsors shows that the Organic Federation of Australia sponsors the journal.
Why is this important? Journals and their editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing. In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck.
And in early 2013 the scientific journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. According to Independent Science News, Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, the company whose products were recently challenged in a scientific study published in this journal, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).
So with eyes wide open to how these journals are being used, what did the pig study in the Organic journal find? The feeding study lasted more than five months and was conducted in the US. 168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn (2), or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet. The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions. They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan. They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” – they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group. The research was undertaken because farmers have for some years been reporting reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn (3).
Farmers have seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination. There is also evidence of a higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die. The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn. The study seemed significant for four reasons:
Results were found in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory
Pigs were used and pigs end up in our food supply.
Pigs have a similar digestive system to people
The animals were fed a mixture of crops that contained three genetically modified genes and genetically modified proteins, relatively new to the food supply.
No food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.
In other words, we are eating these foods in combination without an understanding of what their synergistic toxicity might be.
The study also aimed to address the concern of farmers who had found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding genetically modified food crops to their animals.
But if these foods were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s, why are we only just now conducting the studies? Shouldn’t they have been conducted before these products came to market? And what is the concern?
According to Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist at the Consumers Union, in testimony on H1936, an Act relative to Genetically Engineered Food; H2037, an Act to establish guidelines for genetically engineered food; and H2093, an Act relative to the labeling of food before the Joint Committee on Public Health in Boston, MA, said, “There is global agreement that genetic engineering is different than conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be completed for all GE foods prior to marketing. The human safety problems that may arise include introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins, and changes in nutrition. There may also be unintended effects.”
So how did the US, the FDA, allow these ingredients into our food supply while the rest of the world exercised such precaution? And while correlation is not causation, does it explain the 400% increase we have seen in the number of children with allergies?
Without labels on these foods, there is no way to know.
The United States, unlike all other developed countries, does not require safety testing for genetically modified plants now found in our food supply (although it does require an assessment for genetically modified animals). The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) original policy on genetically engineered (or GM, for genetically modified) plants, developed more than twenty years ago,[1] says that companies may go through a “voluntary safety consultation.” But, in the end, FDA says it is up to the companies to determine safety of any GE food. To date, there have been some 97 “voluntary safety consultations.”
But that was twenty years ago. So what has happened lately?
It turns out that just last June, the American Medical Association’s House on Delegates voted to change its policy on “bioengineered” foods to one that states: “Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens.”[2]
According to Hansen’s testimony, one big problem with safety assessments of genetically modified plants now found in our food supply is that there have been virtually no long-term animal feeding studies, with most feeding studies being of 90 days or shorter. A carefully designed meta-analysis of 19 published studies involving mammals fed this new, genetically modified corn or soy found damage in the kidney, liver and bone marrow, which could be potential indicators for the onset of chronic diseases.[3] However, no animal tests are obligatory for any of the genetically modified plants now found in our food supply cultivated on a large scale in the US.
Do other countries do it this way? Or are we the only ones who take the approach: Shoot first, ask questions later?
It looks like we are one of the only developed countries to do it this way, as over 60 countries around the world either banned or labeled these ingredients in the food supply so that consumers can make an informed choice.
Both the French Food Safety Agency (ANSES) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that such long-term safety assessment should be done on genetically modified foods.
So where are those studies? A long-term (two year) feeding study published in October, 2012 found that females rats fed the genetically modified corn died 2-3 times more quickly, and developed mammary tumors more often than controls who ate non-GE corn, while male rats fed the GE corn have liver and kidney problems at higher rate than controls, and more large tumors than rats fed non-GE corn.[4]
The study was terrible PR for the chemical and biotech industries whose shareholders rely on these products to drive profitability and was quickly criticized by the scientific community for the way in which the study was conducted. The design of the study had flaws, but perhaps it’s most significant contribution to this dialogue was that it raised the awareness of how few long-term independent studies have been conducted.
The result? It had countries around the world calling for more independent studies and science.
With the news of the US pig study, now we have another one.
The sample size was not small. This one involved US pigs fed a combination of genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, fed to animals in our food supply and used in our processed foods, has found evidence of adverse health effects. This study involved a large sample size (168 pigs) of pigs raised in a commercial US piggery, and fed commercially available soy and corn for 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of commercial pig from weaning to slaughter) was designed “to compare the effects of eating either a mixed genetically modified soy and genetically modified corn diet, or an equivalent diet with non- genetically modified ingredients.”[5] The study found that the uteri of genetically modified food-fed pigs was significantly larger (weighed 25% more) than those non- genetically modified food-fed pigs. In addition, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for genetically modified food -fed pigs compared to non- genetically modified food -fed pigs (32% vs 12%, respectively).
It hit the males harder. For male pigs, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was four times higher for genetically modified food -fed males to non- genetically modified food fed males, and for females, the rate was more than 2-fold higher. As the authors conclude “The results indicate that it would be prudent for genetically modified crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked genetically modified crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”[6]
You would think that this had already happened before such widespread introduction into the US food supply without so much as a label. But it hasn’t, so scientists here in the US, as well as farmers, join scientists around the world calling for more independent, long-term studies.
And we need them, because a further look into this study by Mark Lynas, a climate change author who recently became an advocate for these products suggests that “if you look at the data they present (and the data presentation is at least a step better than Seralini) there are obvious problems. Clearly all the animals were in very poor health – weaner mortality is reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”, a vague statement intended to justify what seem to have been inadequate husbandry standards.
This picture is even more stark in the data presented in Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so.
He highlights that close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter, calling the study “propaganda dressed up as science.”
The problem is that this is increasingly the case on both sides of the GMO aisle, with conflicts of interests on both sides of the issue.
There is virtually no independent safety testing of these crops in the US due to intellectual property right problems. When farmers buy genetically modified seed in the US (seeds that have been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of the chemicals sold by the company engineering them), they invariably must sign a product stewardship agreement which forbids them from giving such seeds to researchers.[7] Since researchers must get permission from the biotech companies before they can do research, the result is a scarcity of independent research. Scientists have even been threatened with legal action if they revealed information obtained via freedom-of-information.[8]
In early 2009 26 public sector scientists in the US took the unprecedented step of writing to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”[9] As a result, the editors of Scientific American published a perspective stating that “we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements.” We concur and believe that only truly independent safety tests will give us an answer about the safety of genetically modified foods. In the meantime, it’s crucial that genetically modified foods be labeled, so that if people experience negative effects, they and their doctors can identify them.
Correlation is not causation, but with the skyrocketing rates of food allergies now seen in the US population, studies showing an increased risk of developing allergies after moving to the United States and the fact that few independent, long-term studies have been conducted due to the intellectual property protections enjoyed by these companies, it’s not only consumers who have a basic right to know what they are eating but parents who also have a basic right to know what is in the foods they are feeding their children.
To learn how to get involved with the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States, please visit Just Label It.
[3] Séralini, G-E, Mesnage, R., Clair, E., Gress, S., de Vendômois, JS and D. Cellier. 2011. Genetically modified crops safety assessments: present limits and possible improvements. Environmental Sciences Europe, 23: 10. At: http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-23-10.pdf
[5] Pg. 40 in Carman JA, Vlieger HR, Ver Steeg LJ, Sneller VE, Robinson GW, Clinch-Jones CA, Haynes JI and JW Edwards. 2013. A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems 8(1): 38-54. At: http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf
In April of 2012, the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center (CEHC) released a list of the top ten toxic chemicals suspected to cause autism and learning disabilities.
This list can’t come soon enough, as earlier, the CDC reported that autism spectrum disorder (ASD) now affects 1 of every 88 American children—a 23% increase from 2006 and a 78% increase from 2002.
And while there is controversy over how those numbers are reached, it still is worth repeating. There has been a 78% increase in children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder in the last ten years. At the same time, the CDC also reported that ADHD now affects 14% of American children.
As these disorders continue to affect more children across the U.S., researchers are asking what is causing these dramatic increases. Some of the explanation is greater awareness and more accurate diagnosis. But clearly, there is more to the story than simply genetics, as the increases are far too rapid to be of purely genetic origin.
According to the Mount Sinai Children’s Environmental Health Center (CEHC) release this morning and data from the research article, “Environmental Pollutants and Disease in American Children (July 2002), “the National Academy of Sciences reports that 3% of all neurobehavioral disorders in children are caused directly by toxic exposure in the environment and another 25% disorders are caused by interactions between environmental factors and genetics. But the precise environmental causes are not yet known”. (Note: the first version of this article included a link to the National Academy of Sciences study from 2000 and has been updated to include a link to the July 2002 study).
So while industry can claim that there is little evidence that these chemicals in isolation or in combination (which doctors now refer to as “synergistic toxicity”) cause autism, the truth is that there is still very little evidence or the toxicological safety studies. In other words, there is a gap in the science.
There is a huge gap. According to CNN, the EPA has tested only about 200 of the 80,000 chemicals in use.
But thankfully, that is changing with the work of the team at Mt. Sinai and the extraordinary leadership, courage and intellect of Dr. Phil Landrigan and the urgent call by experts to reform chemical laws.
To guide a research strategy to discover potentially preventable environmental causes and to arm parents and those hoping to be parents with knowledge, the Children’s Environmental Health Center (CEHC) has developed a list of ten chemicals found in consumer products that are suspected to contribute to autism and learning disabilities.
This list was published today in Environmental Health Perspectives in an editorial written by Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, director of the CEHC, Dr. Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), and Dr. Luca Lambertini, also of the CEHC.
The top ten chemicals are:
Lead
Methylmercury
PCBs
Organophosphate pesticides
Organochlorine pesticides
Endocrine disruptors
Automotive exhaust
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Brominated flame retardants
Perfluorinated compounds
As the Children’s Environmental Health Center shares, the editorial was published alongside four other papers—each suggesting a link between toxic chemicals and autism. Both the editorial and the papers originated at a conference hosted by CEHC in December 2010.
The first paper, written by a team at the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, found preliminary evidence linking smoking during pregnancy to Asperger’s disorder and other forms of high-functioning autism. The next twopapers, written by researchers at the University of California—Davis, show that PCBs disrupt early brain development. The final paper, also by a team at UC—Davis, suggests further exploring the link between pesticide exposure and autism.
Ultimately, all five papers call for increased research to identify the possible environmental causes of autism in America’s children.
This importance of this call to action can not be emphasized enough, because while our children may only represent 30% of our population, they are 100% of our future and we need to protect them like our country depends on it. Because it does.
So what can you do to protect the health of your children? Thankfully, a lot. And while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something, so choose one, some or all from the list below:
Eat organic food whenever possible to reduce exposure to synthetic pesticides which by law are not allowed for use in its production
Open your windows to clear the air in your home from the toxins that can accumulate there
Take your shoes off as you come inside to keep pesticides on the soles of your shoes from entering your home
Look for cans and plastic bottles that are “BPA-free”
Today, so many of us are looking for insight into ways that we can protect the health of our children.
Thankfully, Dr. Oz recently brought a much-needed awareness to what exactly is in the juices that we are giving our kids. As he did so, I turned my attention to the sweet stuff and came across this infographic from Health Science that highlights just how much weight-promoting sugar is now found in our “fruit juices”.
Did you know that that an 8 ounce serving of juice contained more sugar than 2 1/2 donuts or a can of soda? Me neither.
But since there is no prescription more powerful than knowledge, with the rate of having a food allergy is 59% higher in obese children, this new-found information might do more than help reduce the obesity epidemic we are seeing in our children, it might help reduce the burden of allergies, heart diseases and other conditions weighing on the health of our families, too.
Today, so many of us are looking for insight into ways that we can protect the health of our children.