Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Order Robyn's newest book, Seeding Innovation: BUY IT NOW
Menu

Real Food

organic foods on the farm

New Study Finds Clear Nutritional Advantage in Organic Foods

, 0

Largest study of its kind

Analysing data from around the world, the team led by Newcastle University, reviewed 196 papers on milk and 67 papers on meat and found clear differences between organic and conventional milk and meat, especially in terms of fatty acid composition, and the concentrations of certain essential minerals and antioxidants.

Publishing their findings today in the British Journal of Nutrition, the team say the data show a switch to organic meat and milk would go some way towards increasing our intake of nutritionally important fatty acids.

Chris Seal, Professor of Food and Human Nutrition at Newcastle University explains: “Omega-3s are linked to reductions in cardiovascular disease, improved neurological development and function, and better immune function.

“Western European diets are recognised as being too low in these fatty acids and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends we should double our intake.

“But getting enough in our diet is difficult. Our study suggests that switching to organic would go some way towards improving intakes of these important nutrients.”

Western European diets are too low in omega-3 fatty acids

The systematic literature reviews analysed data from around the world and found that organic milk and meat have more desirable fat profiles than conventional milk and meat.

Most importantly, a switch from conventional to organic would raise omega-3 fat intake without increasing calories and undesirable saturated fat. For example, half a litre of organic full fat milk (or equivalent fat intakes from other dairy products like butter and cheese) provides an estimated 16% (39 mg) of the recommended, daily intake of very long-chain omega-3, while conventional milk provides 11% (25 mg).

Other positive changes in fat profiles included lower levels of myristic and palmitic acid in organic meat and a lower omega-6/omega-3 ratio in organic milk. Higher levels of fat soluble vitamins such as vitamin E and carotenoids and 40% more CLA in organic milk were also observed.

The study showed that the more desirable fat profiles in organic milk were closely linked to outdoor grazing and low concentrate feeding in dairy diets, as prescribed by organic farming standards.

The two new systematic literature reviews also describe recently published results from several mother and child cohort studies linking organic milk, dairy product and vegetable consumption to a reduced risk of certain diseases. This included reduced risks of eczema in babies.

Newcastle University’s Professor Carlo Leifert, who led the studies, said: “People choose organic milk and meat for three main reasons: improved animal welfare, the positive impacts of organic farming on the environment, and the perceived health benefits. But much less is known about impacts on nutritional quality, hence the need for this study.

“Several of these differences stem from organic livestock production and are brought about by differences in production intensity, with outdoor-reared, grass-fed animals producing milk and meat that is consistently higher in desirable fatty acids such as the omega-3s, and lower in fatty acids that can promote heart disease and other chronic diseases.”

Avoiding iodine over- and under-supply from milk is a challenge

The study also found 74% more iodine in conventional milk which is important information, especially for UK consumers, where iodized table salt is not widely available.

Iodine is low in most foods, except seafood, and the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommends Iodine fortification of table salt to address this. Iodine fortification of cattle feeds is also widely used to increase iodine concentrations in both organic and conventional milk.

Gillian Butler, co-author and senior lecturer in animal nutrition at Newcastle University, explains: “There is a relatively narrow margin between dietary Iodine deficiency (<140 µg/day) and excessive intakes (> 500 µg/day) from our diet which can lead to thyrotoxicoxis.

“Optimising iodine intake is therefore challenging, since globally there seems to be as much concern about excessive rather than inadequate intake.”

In the USA, China, Brazil and many European countries, where Iodine fortified salt is widely used, elevated levels of iodine in milk may increase the risk of excessive intake for individuals with high dairy consumption. For this reason the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has proposed a reduction in the permitted level of iodine in cattle feed from 5 to 2 mg iodine per kg of feed.

However, in the UK, where iodized salt is not widely available, the population relies more on milk and dairy products for adequate iodine supply. National Diet and Nutrition Survey data (NDNS) suggest that milk and dairy products supply between 31-52% of iodine in the UK diet.

The daily recommended intake of iodine in the UK is 140 µg/day and just over half comes from dietary sources other than milk/dairy products. Based on results from the study, half a litre of milk would provide 53% of and 88% of the daily recommended intake from organic and conventional milk respectively. However, pregnant and breastfeeding women have a higher iodine requirement (250 µg/day) and are therefore more at risk of iodine deficiency, which could affect neurological development in babies.

Further evidence of the health benefits of organic food

The work builds on a previous study by the team – involving experts from the UK, US, France, Italy, Switzerland,and Poland – investigating the composition of organic and conventionally-grown crops.

This previous study – also published in the British Journal of Nutrition – showed that organic crops and crop-based foods are up to 60% higher in a number of key antioxidants than conventionally-grown crops and contained less of the toxic metal cadmium.

“We have shown without doubt there are composition differences between organic and conventional food. Taken together, the three studies on crops, meat and milk suggest that a switch to organic fruit, vegetables, meat and dairy products would provide significantly higher amounts of dietary antioxidants and omega-3 fatty acids,” concludes Professor Leifert.

“We need substantially more, well designed studies and surveys before we can accurately estimate composition differences in meat from different farm animals and for many nutritionally important compounds (vitamins, minerals, toxic metal and pesticide residues), as there is currently too little data to make comparisons.

“However, the fact that there are now several mother and child cohort studies linking organic food consumption to positive health impacts shows why it is important to further investigate the impact of the way we produce our food on human health.

The authors highlight that only a small number of studies have been carried out comparing organic and non-organic meat, and that even significant results may still carry a high level of uncertainty.

The authors of this study welcome the continued public and scientific debate on this important subject. The entire database generated and used for this analysis is freely available on the Newcastle University website, alongside the data from their previous study on organic versus conventional crops (http://research.ncl.ac.uk/nefg/QOF) for the benefit of other experts and interested members of the public.

It’s time to rethink food and refinance our food system so that organic food is affordable and accessible to all who want it.

References:

“Higher PUFA and omega-3 PUFA, CLA, a-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic bovine milk: A systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analysis”. Carlo Leifert et al. British Journal of Nutrition

“Composition differences between organic and conventional meat; a systematic literature review and meta-analysis”. Carlo Leifert et al. British Journal of Nutrition

Photo by USDAgov

Source: Newcastle University, UK

organic effect

Organic Food Sales Explode in Sweden

, 0

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]We first published an article with this video in May of 2015:

[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_video link=”https://youtu.be/oB6fUqmyKC8″][vc_empty_space height=”20px”][vc_column_text]The effect was dramatic to say the least. Sharing on social media flooded attention to the video and boosted views from about 4,000 to over 5 million. But the effect may have been even greater.

The growth of organic food sales has been dramatic in the US. Sales are climbing 14% each year.

In Sweden, astronomical would be a more apt description with over 40 percent growth reported for 2015.

Roland Sundgren, a customer at  Coop.se, who sponsored the video, said:

“I usually try to buy organic and locally produced. Nature and the environment are important to me. It’s a little more expensive, but that does not matter if there is a very large price difference, perhaps I will avoid the organic option, but I keep in mind that the more people who buy them, the cheaper they will become.”

Awareness of the ingredients—intended and unintended—in our food is growing all over the world. This growing awareness is becoming a market force to be reckoned with. Smart companies are working to get out in front and nurture this growing demand and prepare for it. The not-so-smart are trying to lead from behind with lies, political chicanery and subterfuge. Watch the numbers of companies that are getting smart about listening to customer demand. They speak volumes.

Source: vlt.se

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]
organic food cost

Organic Food: Why It’s Expensive & What We Can Do to Change That

, 0

Last year, we shared a video out of Sweden that went viral. It highlighted what happened to a family of five when they were taken off of conventional food and put on an “only organic” diet for two weeks. The level of tested pesticides in their bodies dropped off to almost nothing. It opened up a dialogue and prompted calls for science: What about other pesticides? Why did some have higher levels? Is dehydration a factor? What is the long term impact?

The questions speak to why it is so important that we continue to study the intended and unintended effects of how our food is produced.

But what does the term “organic” actually mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY ORGANICS COST MORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO WHERE TO START?

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

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

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

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

Right now, the organic sector is the fastest growing sector in the food industry, growing at about 14%.  The problem is that of the 915 million acres farmed in the U.S., only 5.5 million of those acres are organic.  So out of all of our farmland, less than 1% is farmed organically.  That has to change.  The financial incentives offered by the federal government skew incentives.  It is time to level the playing field.

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

broc

Kids Love It: Roasted Broccoli with Sesame Oil

, 1

NOTE: Make sure that you are not allergic to sesame before trying this. You can always swap out the sesame oil for something else! 

We’ve had so many requests for this recipe since randomly sharing this one night on my personal Facebook page, that we’ve decided to just put it on the site.

It is so easy, so good, and even my pickiest, non-green loving child wolfs it down.

The kids will eat this every time I make it. Their friends do. They try to get it all before the other kids do. It’s the best kind of awesome, and as a mom who was clueless to all of this ten years ago, still makes me so grateful.

And it’s so easy:

  • Broccoli, sprinkled with sesame oil, salt and pepper.
  • Single layer the broccoli heads on a baking sheet.
  • Sprinkle with sesame oil, salt and pepper.
  • Pop the tray into the oven at 450 for about 15 minutes.

So good that while we were getting this post up, we got this note from a mom of teenagers.

Get your veggies on!

brocquote

foodwaste2

The Hunger Game: How GMOs Failed to Feed the World

, , 2

One of the most compelling promises that the biotech industry makes to justify the need for their products  (genetically engineered crops and portfolio of chemicals needed to grow them) are that these ingredients are needed to feed the world.

Who can argue with that if it’s working?

But it’s not.  The United States adopted genetically engineered foods faster than any country in the world.  These products are labeled for 60% of the world’s population for their novelty, and not allowed in certain countries.  China’s government has even taken such a hard stance against them that Chinese seed companies are dumping their genetically engineered products in the U.S.

It all feels a bit backwards and upside down.

And here’s why: the promise of these products to feed the world is not working here in the U.S.  It’s tough to sell this when 45 million Americans go hungry and we throw away 40% of our food.  The problem has become so dire that a teenage girl stepped into it, built a model and developed a revolutionary technology to reduce food waste.  It’s a real solution to a very real problem.

Recently, there has been a lot of press frenzy around the announcement that the FDA approved genetically engineered salmon. The battle cry from the biotech industry was that this new salmon, regulated by the FDA as a new drug application as seen here, would provide better protein at a smaller carbon foot print to feed the world.

Who wouldn’t want that if it’s been proven true?  The problem is that it’s a promise, a forward-looking statement that has been used before and proven false.

Back when Monsanto was releasing genetically engineered soy, the same arguments were used: feed the world, better protein.

But according to Business Week, it turns out that “after millennia when the biggest food-related threat to humanity was the risk of having too little, the 21st century is one where the fear is having too much”.

It’s not just a domestic problem here in the U.S. It’s a global one.

In the U.S., we waste and toss out almost 40% of our food, racking up $165 billion in losses each year.

Let’s step back and think about this for a minute, not just from the comfort of our homes here in the United States, but as a global issue.

How could that food be put to better use? And do genetically engineered crops impact this issue?

The chemical industry is busy manufacturing demand for their products by claiming that we need them—their genetically engineered seeds and the portfolio of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers needed to grow them—to feed the world. It’s their job and a strong marketing strategy.

But are they using scare tactics to get us to believe that we need their genetically engineered, chemically dependent products in order to feed the world. Are we really facing mass starvation without them?

Most of these genetically engineered crops are grown to be fed to livestock. Some goes into ethanol and ends up in our cars. But has it contributed to the global obesity epidemic and food waste?

It turns out that just might be the case.

According to Business Week, “the issue isn’t so much that we can’t grow enough. Rather, existing food supplies are so poorly distributed that those hundreds of millions have too little for their own health, while 2 billion-plus have too much.” On top of that, a third of food is wasted worldwide, spoiled and thrown out before it even reaches consumers.

We are wasting enough food every day here in America to feed the hungry. And while much focus has been on the obesity epidemic, it is becoming increasingly hard to ignore the fact that with advertisements and food access available 24/7, we’ve got more food than we know what to do with.

According to both the USDA and United Nations, 30-40% of food is wasted. MSNBC just reported that “Food Waste is a Massive Problem.”

Nearly one-third of the fruit, vegetables, grains, meat, and packaged foods produced across the globe gets tossed out every year.

Americans throw away an average of 20 pounds of food each month—costing them each between $28 and $43.

One of the most insightful disclosures of just how bad this food waste and excess of commodity crops has gotten is documented in the movie, Dive! The Film, a film made with Jeremy Seifert and Josh Kunau, that highlights exactly what goes into dumpsters in America. And it is shocking what we throw away.

This 45-minute documentary follows Seifert and his friends as they explore the alleys and backstreets of America’s grocery stores in search of good food tossed away because of overly cautious expiration dates. These guys don’t mess around. They suit right up in their bathing suits and dive right in…to America’s dumpsters, and turn up some of the most amazing information.

Americans throw away 96 billion pounds of food every year, or 27 percent of the total amount of available food. That’s 3,000 pounds of food a second.

But it’s not just us tossing those PB&J crusts out, the main line of food waste tends to be coming out the back end of the grocery stores. And the film shows that a frightening amount ends up being tossed by grocery stores before it can be purchased by consumers.

Now that’s good news for the food industry, as it creates a constant state of demand for their products.

But what if we were to figure out a better business model, designed to deliver all of the food we need without wasting over a quarter of it? What if our taxpayer dollars were used to build a distribution model to get this food to people who need it, like the 1 in 4 American children at-risk for hunger, rather than on farm subsidies which are arguably contributing to this mounting waste?

We have an opportunity to actually build a better food system, one that creates less waste and more nutrient-dense foods. Wouldn’t that be in the best interest in the health of our families, our corporations, our economy and our country?

In the meantime, what can consumers do?

  • Mine your fridge
  • Use your freezer
  • Get creative with leftovers
  • Compost
  • Take smaller portions

This isn’t just an American issue. Food waste is a global problem. If you are interested in learning more, please visit: http://divethefilm.com/

 

wegmans

Thank You, Wegmans!

, 0

Dear Wegmans,

We just wanted to give you a little love and a heartfelt thank you for your recent announcement to remove artificial dyes from your bakery products.

This is a huge move for American parents, because as you may know, these artificial colors are not allowed in kids’ foods in other countries like in the U.K. And while our asks may have fallen on deaf ears at the FDA, we are so grateful that you are listening.

We recently had a dear friend from Texas share this shout-out on her Facebook page. What you may not know about her is that she played a lead role of “Little Miss Sunshine” in one of our musicals in middle school.  We’ve known each other for a long time! We can honestly say that your announcement brought this out in her again! Only this time, with the heart of a mom.

Here is what she wrote:

“THANK YOU, WEGMANS, for eliminating artificial color from the bakery!! It may seem silly, that I’m making a really big deal over sprinkles and icing and birthday cake. Even I am surprised by how meaningful this is to me, actually. Griffy has a severe allergic reaction to food dye. If he can’t have cake (for instance), ok, no cake.Though it may be disappointing, it is not a huge deal and his food allergy sure could be worse. But the fact that he COULD have a cupcake, or an orange pumpkin cookie, or a donut, along with everyone else, is remarkable. I kept taking things up to the counter, in disbelief that there was no dye. But it’s true. No more dye in the cake, no more dye in the icing. Less dye throughout the whole store.

(It makes more sense to me now, that Wegmans store brand marshmallows are dye-free, while “the leading brand” contains artificial color.) ?I have always loved Wegmans, but now it’s like a whole new level.

‪#‎cryingatthemarket‬  ‪#‎happytears‬ ‪#‎dumpthejunk‬  ‪#‎dyefree ‬‪#‎wegmansstolemyheartfromtraderjoestoday‬”

So thank you for all that you do for American parents! We are singing your song!

Robyn and Loryn

 

Affording organic food

How Real People on Real Budgets Can Afford Organic Food

, 3

In a world in which we are constantly worried about the health of our families, the stability of our jobs, paying the mortgage and all of life’s responsibilities, the simple act of trying to eat healthy often becomes a challenge.

I just received an email from a reader over the weekend with this question:

“QUESTION—Do you have any tips on how to keep costs down when trying to transition to organic? Feeding a family of 6 on a budget is a huge challenge and when I shop organic—sadly I have to make hard choices about which foods I can afford to buy organic and which I cannot.”

Not to mention that if your family is anything like mine, then you’ve most likely got some picky eaters, limited time and a limited budget with which to pull all of this off in a world of soaring food prices.

Thankfully, companies across the food spectrum are waking up to the fact that more and more Americans want organic food.  Kroger launched a private label line, Simple Truth Organic, Campbell’s released an organic line, while Nestle said that genetically engineered foods, crops that have been engineered using biotechnology to withstand increasing doses of chemicals sold by the chemical industry, may not be “the answer” that the food industry needs to feeding the world. Those are big moves.

But it can leave a parent, an eater, a mom asking: where to start?

And what’s an eater to do?

Thankfully, there is a lot.  And these tips are for everyone, not just words for the “well-nourished who can afford to shop at Whole Foods,” because clean and safe food should not be a function of zip code or socioeconomic status, it is a fundamental human right.

Today, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in the U.S. are expected to get cancer in their lifetime. Those are jaw-dropping statistics, and the rates of cancer, food allergies, autism and other conditions are driving a food awakening.

Access to food, labeled to disclose allergens, additives, genetically engineered ingredients & chemicals used on them, is a human right that should be afforded all Americans as it is to eaters in other countries, especially in light of cancer statistics that suggest 41% of Americans are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes.

So here are a few tips for those who want to start buying organic food but don’t want to pay the high price:

  • Go Orgo-Generic. Major grocery store chains like Safeway and Kroger, and big box food retailers like Costco and even Wal-Mart, now carry their own organic foods. And all foods labeled “USDA organic” are created equal, no matter where you find them. No need to upscale your grocery store when Wal-Mart gets it done.
  • Buy Frozen. Frozen foods (like strawberries and fish) are cheaper than those that are delivered fresh. So if the prices on fresh produce are eye-popping, cruise on over to the frozen food aisle for a discount.
  • Eat with the Season. Retrain your taste buds to think like your grandmother did. She didn’t eat strawberries in the middle of winter. Locally grown foods are usually cheaper than those flown in from another hemisphere so if you eat with the season, you’ll be eating more affordably.
  • Skip the Box, Embrace the Bulk. Food that comes in boxes costs more because of the packaging costs associated with designing those pretty pictures! When you buy in bulk, you’re not paying for all of the packaging, you’re paying for the food which is what you want anyway. So slide on over to that bulk food aisle in Safeway and look for noodles, cereals, rice and beans in your local grocery store.
  • Support the US economy and Buy Local. You can save money by becoming a member of a local farm (just like you became a member at Safeway or Costco!). How do you find a local farm, you ask? Well, thankfully, the USDA now has a list of online sites to help you find the closest farm near you.
  • Grow One Thing. If you’re as busy as we are, there’s not a chance in creation that you are going to be able to feed your family off of your home-grown harvest, but you will find that growing a tomato plant can be incredibly inspiring. And it’s not as intimidating as it seems. So pick one thing to grow — you can do it (we all grew lima beans in cups as kids, right?).
  • Find a Friend.It is way more fun when you share this adventure with someone else, so be sure to find a friend, share this link and get back to us with your success stories (and if you have a tip that you want to add, please post it in the comment section below!).

Good luck! And keep us posted on your success stories, because as a national family sitting down to our national dinner table, together, we can inspire, create and restore the health of our country.

buying organic

Buying Organic: When to Do It, When to Skip It.

, 0

Telling someone to buy organic when they can’t afford to doesn’t solve any problems.

The problem is that in a lot of cases, organic food is more expensive than its conventional counterparts.

We’ve inherited a food system in which fake food is cheap, and real food is expensive. Why? Because our taxpayer dollars are used to support the growing of chemically-intensive agriculture and the growing of genetically engineered crops like corn and soy used in processed, fake food, while farmers growing things organically, which means by law, without the use of synthetic chemicals and weedkillers, GMOs and artificial ingredients are then charged fees to prove that their products are safe. They are also charged fees to label it. It would be like getting fined to wear your seat belt.

Which is why when you start singing the organic gospel, you may get an eye roll. We need to finance a smarter food system. One that levels the playing field economically, for farmers, for families for our future.

But in the meantime, Consumer Reports just came out with a short video that shares some insight on how to make decisions in the grocery store: where you want to buy organic, where it is less important. The guidelines are based on data that shares levels of pesticides on produce.

Did you know that the USDA measures pesticide residue on citrus fruits like oranges after the peels have been removed. Have you ever had a kid stick the orange slice, peel on, in her mouth? I have.

Have you heard that it helps to remove the outer leaves of a head of lettuce to reduce your exposure to some pesticides? It’s a quick trick.

Did you know that the pesticide levels on green beens hasn’t fallen in 20 years? Surely, we are smarter than this.

Here is a quick buying guide for 10 popular items. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good, focus on progress not perfection, and do what you can, where you are with what you have.

Our goal is a clean food system, one that is both safe and affordable to all families. Right now, not everyone can afford organic food, not even close. Thankfully, companies like Target, Kroger and others are following in Whole Foods footsteps and expanding their selections of organic foods.

It’s the work of a lifetime, and all of our changes are adding up.

Want to learn more? Check out: Organic Food: Why the price tag; is it worth it?

 

organic food

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

, 0

Recently, we shared a video out of Sweden that went viral. It highlighted what happened to a family of five when they were taken off of conventional food and put on an “only organic” diet for two weeks. The level of tested pesticides in their bodies dropped off to almost nothing. It opened up a dialogue and prompted calls for science: What about other pesticides? Why did some have higher levels? Is dehydration a factor? What is the long term impact?

The questions speak to why it is so important that we continue to study the intended and unintended effects of how our food is produced.

But what does the term “organic” actually mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY ORGANICS COST MORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO WHERE TO START?

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

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

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

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

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

non-gmo

Consumer Demand for Non-GMO Products Is Exploding and Is Here to Stay

, 0

Consumer concerns about genetically modified foods are increasing, while the market for non-GMO products continues to see exponential growth.

These were key messages of a recent education session: “Formulating from Seed to Shelf: GMO and Non-GMO Considerations” held at the IFT Expo in July in Chicago.

59 percent of consumers using non-GMO products

According to Steve French, managing partner at Natural Marketing Institute, the number of non-GMO product launches increased from 551 in 2012 to 1,992 in 2014, a growth rate of 262 percent. Product categories that saw the most non-GMO product introductions included bakery, snacks, and dairy.

The number of people using non-GMO products increased from 37 percent in 2012 to 59 percent in 2014.

Consumption of non-GMO products is increasing among all age groups—baby boomers, generation X, millennials, and matures, according to French whose company surveys consumer attitudes about GMOs and non-GMO foods. Millennials lead the way with 72 percent saying they used non-GMO products in the past year.

“Consumers are stating top of mind that GMOs are becoming one of the things they are looking for when choosing products,” French said.

In 2014, 58 percent of consumers surveyed responded “yes” to the following statement: “It is important for their store to carry products that do not include GM ingredients.”

Fifty-five percent of consumers would be less likely to buy a product if it contained GMOs, and one-third said they would stop buying a brand if they learned it contained GMOs.

French had a warning for food manufacturers. “If you are in the supply chain or a brand owner, you should think about what happens if a competitor is promoting their products as non-GMO,” he said.

It’s not about science; it’s about consumer choice”

French said that concerns about GM foods have increased dramatically in the past two years.

“Both awareness and concern about GMOs are up,” he said.

In response to a question from an audience member about GMO concerns vanishing as “consumers understand GMOs are not toxic,” French said “I think it’s definitely here to stay. This is part of a trend towards clean (food) labels and transparency. It’s not about science; it’s about choice. Consumers want to know they do have a choice.”

Originally published at the Organic and Non-GMO Report

Load More