Subway Food Fight

Click to sign the petition!

Tweet
  I always try to find the right balance between sharing my own thoughts and things that are going on in my life, with things I come across that I think are worth sharing.

  You can go ahead and put today's entry into the 'things I think are worth sharing' category.

  Previously, I've written about the US Food Supply in comparison to the European food system.

  There are particular American companies that have made it a practice to alter their products' recipes for the European market (because of their usage of banned ingredients), meanwhile leaving the potentially harmful ingredients in the same foods distributed in the US.

Why the altered recipes?
  Many times, recipes are changed because a banned (in the European Union, that is) ingredient is used. For example, the US version of Betty Crocker Red Velvet cake has artificial colors, which are banned in the United Kingdom because they are linked to hyperactivity in children, food cravings, and obesity. In order for that product to be sold on European shelves, the recipe needs to be reformulated to match stricter foods laws.

  In the US, there are no such bans, so Betty Crocker leaves the questionable ingredient in, more-often-than-not because it is the cheapest way to produce the food.

  Other times, they alter the recipe in Europe simply to avoid a genetically modified organism label being slapped on their product. In the EU, GMOs are required to be labeled. To avoid that stigma, recipes are altered, and genetically modified ingredients are removed.

  So they can adjust their recipes for overseas distribution, but refuse to do the same for their American consumers.

  This happens across the board with processed foods -- from cereals, to candy, to chips. The recipes are altered to provide safer products for European consumers. While in the US, companies continue to produce their foods in the least expensive way, with little regard to public health (hello, FDA?).

Consumer action in action. It works!

  There's a woman who goes by the name Food Babe leading the charge against these companies. Don't let the cutesy nickname fool you, the Food Babe is one tough cookie. She takes these huge corporations head-on, and doesn't back down.

  In the last year alone, consumer interest, participation, and outrage has lead to Chipotle, Chick-fil-A, Kraft, General Mills (Cheerios), Gatorade, and even Johnson & Johnson to change their ways.

  They've become more transparent, and they've listened to the consumers. That's an incredible starting point.

The Food Babe versus Kraft Mac & Cheese
  Almost one year ago, the Food Babe set her sights on Kraft Macaroni and Cheese. In the US, the recipe contained the artificial food dyes Yellow 5 and Yellow 6. In the EU and UK, these dyes are not in Kraft Macaroni and Cheese because they are considered harmful and were removed due to consumer outcry.

  The Food Babe started a petition, over 300-thousand people signed it, and soon enough, Kraft listened to its challengers, and removed the artificial dyes from some of their products.

New Challenge
  Now, just last week, the Food Babe has re-focused on Subway and their breads.

Even Jimmy Fallon is in on the fight against yoga mat breads.

  She discovered that Subway makes bread with an ingredient called azodicarbonamide. This ingredient can be found in almost all the breads at Subway in the US, but not in Europe, Australia or other parts of the world.

  Azodicarbonamide is the same chemical used to make yoga mats, shoe soles, and other rubbery objects. Given those uses, it probably isn't meant for human consumption.

  Subway uses this ingredient as a bleaching agent and dough conditioner which allows them to produce bread faster and cheaper without considering the following health consequences and facts:

• The World Health Organization has linked it to respiratory issues, allergies and asthma. 
• When a truck carrying azodicarbonamide overturned on a Chicago highway in 2001, it prompted city officials to issue the highest hazardous materials alert and evacuate people within a half mile radius. Many of the people on the scene complained of burning eyes and skin irritation as a result.
• The U.K. Health And Safety Executive has recognized azodicarbonamide as a potential cause of asthma.
• When azodicarbonamide is heated, there are studies that show it is linked to tumor development and cancer.
• Not only is this ingredient banned in Europe and Australia, but you also get fined 450,000 dollars if you get caught using it in Singapore and can serve 15 years in prison.

  Go here to join over 90,000 others, and ask Subway to remove azodicarbonamide, because we deserve the same safer ingredients Subway serves in other countries.

  Subway has responded to the Food Babe, saying that they they would be removing azodicarbonamide from their breads 'soon'. However, they did not respond when asked for a timeline, or a new ingredient list.

Healthy versus Safe
  While none of these foods scream healthy, sometimes convenience takes precedence. And that's why many of these foods are consumed, because they are convenient.

  We all want to be able to make a nice home cooked meal for our families all the time. But sometimes, we're in a time crunch, or we're tired. It's in the those times, we might call on these products. So we might as well make sure they're safe, right?

  All anyone is looking for is a safe food supply. Why a recipe is deemed harmful in one country, yet allowed in another, is beyond me. That's a blog for another day.

  The foundation is there, the recipes have been altered around the world. Now, all we need is the execution in the US.

RELATED LINKS:
Ingredients Banned in Other Countries, Remain in US Food Supply
Subway Petition Update
Subway Petition

RELATED POSTS:
M&M Analysis: Altered Recipes in Europe Remove GMOs
Do You Know What GMOs Are?
Banned Foods We Eat Every Day

Everyone Needs a Treat

Need a treat?

Tweet  
  Going too long without a treat is impossible. And I doubt I am alone in thinking that way. For me, never indulging in a cookie or two, ice cream, or crackers or chips is not an option.

  I've found an all or nothing mentality doesn't work too well. I need balance and routine. Even in my eating habits.

  As careful, and as conscientious as I am about how I eat, I always find room for an occasional treat or two! I'd go crazy otherwise.

  Giving yourself a break, indulging -- whatever you want to call it -- is a necessity in order to stay with your day-to-day routine. Long term dieting, if that's what you wish to call it, isn't possible.

No Chemicals, Please
  How you indulge, and how often you indulge is key. When it comes time for your treat, be picky!

  Calories and fat are okay. Chemicals are not! I know, in today's world, this is tough. The readily-available stuff -- the candy bars, the potato chips, the microwave popcorn -- is the easiest to get our hands on! But it's also the most damaging health wise.

  Not surprisingly, there are non-chemical options. You just have to look a little harder to find them.

Unreal comparison.

  For those with a sweet tooth (like me), check out Unreal Candy. They 'reinvente' your favorite candy, and make it with 100% REAL ingredients. No artificial junk, no corn syrup, no hydrogenated oil, no preservatives, no GMOs, and 50% less sugar.

  Cleaned up junk food. Worth a try if you ask me.

  If you find yourself reaching for a candy bar, make it an Unreal candy bar. Or there's Newman's Own Organics cookies. Or Eden Organic popcorn.

  The point is: there are options. And they go beyond M&Ms, Ritz Crackers, Doritos, and Orville Redenbacher's Popcorn. They are non-GMO, no chemical foods.

  Our body knows how to process calories, fats, and sugars. It doesn't, on the other hand, know what to do with chemicals. When we take the chemicals out of our snacks, it then becomes about the quantity -- how much we're eating of it (check out the podcast linked below for Jillian Michaels' talk of her 80/20% rule).

  Long story, short: pick a version of  your treat of choice that is not loaded with chemicals and/or trans-fat.

 Many times, this conversation leads to diet talk: the fad diet everyone is trying at the moment, what's working for your friend, and so on. Everyone wants to know, 'what should I be doing; what's the best diet?' 

Fill up with whole foods.

The Best Diet
  There is no 'best diet' per se.

  What I find valuable about each diet-of-the-moment is that they allow me to learn a little bit more about nutrition. If you do some research on your own, and try to learn about the various (and they are wide-ranging) ways of eating, you'll find yourself becoming educated on each and every one of them.

  You learn about food, and how it fuels you. You learn what works for you, and how your body reacts to various foods. We're all vastly different, and therefore we all react to eating habits and diets in different ways. You learn to value the quality of food.

  And most importantly, at least for me, it truly allows you to realize a balanced diet, filled with as many 'whole foods' as you can fit in, is the way to go.

  Check out this blog post from Precision Nutrition for great information about diet specifics.

  It's realizing it's a lifestyle choice, not a diet. Being healthy isn't a destination, it's a way to live.

Fads Come and Go
  Diets, gimmicks, and the popular workout-of-the-year don't last forever.

  Excluding entire food groups (such as fruit), one macronutrient or another (carbohydrates, for example), or strict demands with how to prepare food (raw food diet) are impossible diets to stick with for a prolonged period of time, let alone your entire life.

A little joke I dug up.

  To restrict yourself in such an extreme way is not a sustainable way of life.

  While you might go low-carb or paleo for four or five months, and see great results. Inevitably, we start going back to a more 'normal' way to eat. Those restricted foods are added back in, and that's when we run into trouble.

  The basics -- the well-rounded, whole food, in-moderation advices -- will last through time. If 'healthy' is a goal, habits and lifestyles have to be adjusted to match that goal. Again, it's a lifestyle, not a diet.

  We've all heard it, and it's true: Cleaning up your diet, limited processed foods, really will make you feel better, and be healthier -- even when you find yourself wandering towards the junk food aisle!

  Be conscientious and thoughtful about how you are eating, but don't forget to give yourself a break every once in a while too! It will make you more successful in the long run.

LINKS:

Jillian Michaels Podcast 4/29/2013
Enjoy Foods You Love Without 'Cheating'
Food Babe's Non-GMO Snack Brands
UNREAL Candy
Newman's Own Organics
Precision Nutrition: the Best Diet

Food Supply Summary: the Farm Bill, Monsanto, and GMOs

Jon Stewart explained the ludicrous Monsanto Protection Act.

Tweet
  We're going to run the US Food Supply gamut today. But it's long overdue!

  Every week it seems, for the past few months, there has been a GMO-related development hit the news wire. With each and every story, I fully intended to give it attention, and write a blog focused around it. But it's in-depth, involved stuff that takes time to get a hold of. So weeks passed, and the the stories mounted.

  Just now, in the past few weeks, there have been significant developments, in the battle for GMO labeling, the expired Farm Bill, and Americans' (and the world's) growing disgust for the Big Ag super-power Monsanto.

  I'm going to touch on a lot of areas; hopefully spread the word, clarify any confusion (yours and mine), and encourage conversation.

• First up, the passage of the 'Monsanto Protection Act'.

  Officially named the 'Farmer Assurance Provision,' this law was quickly nicknamed the Monsanto Protection Act by opponents when the details of the law were analysed (apparently it's all about language in Washington).

March Against Monsanto in Melbourne.

  Under the guise of farmer protection and public safety, this provision was conveniently snuck into the must-pass budget bill in March. The Monsanto Protection Act gives biotech companies, GM seed distributors (such as Monsanto), and their new, untested products, free passes.

  Prior to the law's passage, because of potential lawsuits (and I would hope public safety), biotech companies had to get permission from the US Department of Agriculture to plant new genetically engineered crops.

  Now, with the Monsanto Protection Act in play, the USDA is required to allow the planting of new genetically engineered crops while the agency conducts further review.

  Unfortunately, once the seeds are planted, it's a little difficult to undo any harm that my be discovered after the fact. And once a law has been set, a precedent has been set as well.

  Once the public was made aware of what had really transpired, there was quite an outcry. Imagine, it's like saying, 'go ahead and put those potentially dangerous food additives on the market while we keep studying them to see if they make people sick'. (We kind of already do that, but that's another story.)

  Rightfully so, the people were mad.

  Now, there is an attempt to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act. Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley has introduced an amendment to the Farm Bill (which will be discussed further down the page) that would completely repeal the biotech industry's free pass. Sen. Merkley will be introducing the amendment to Congress in the coming week.

  Sign the petition to communicate your disapproval of the loophole here.

• Second up, GMO Labeling Wins and Failures.

  Monsanto and GMOs are becoming part of the everyday vernacular. That is a good thing. We are making progress!

  The problem with GMOs in the US, is that they're unidentifiable. Because of uncertainties about safety, GMOs are required to be labeled, or banned, in 64 countries throughout the world. Over the course of the last several months, a lot has happened regarding the US GMO labeling battle.

  Of course, it was narrowly defeated in the November election in California (Prop 37). But GMO Labeling is becoming an ever-present debate. At the state level, over 65 bills have been introduced in 2013 regarding GMOs, and the majority of them about labeling. 20 states are working to get GMO labeling initiatives on their ballots.

  Last week, the Connecticut Senate approved a GMO labeling bill, and is awaiting vote by the Connecticut House.

  Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Peter DeFazio have introduced a mandatory labeling law to be voted on as a part of the Farm Bill. The law would require food manufacturers to clearly label any product containing genetically engineered ingredients, or else the product would be classified as “misbranded” by the FDA.

March Against Monsanto in Las Vegas.

  Public opinion is growing. Over the weekend, more than 2 million people in 436 cities in 52 countries rallied in protests against the seed giant Monsanto and genetically modified food, in the 'March Against Monsanto'.

  Because of growing public opinion and demand, many Food Companies are Seeking non-GM Ingredients. Customers are asking for them, and they are trying to comply. But in the US, roughly 90% of corn, soybean, canola and sugar beet crops are grown from genetically engineered seeds. So you can imagine it is quite a challenge for companies seeking non-GM ingredients.

• Thirdly, The New Farm Bill is finally nearing a conclusion.

  Every five years, Congress passes a bundle of legislation, commonly called the 'Farm Bill' that sets national agriculture, nutrition, conservation, and forestry policy. The Farm Bill has been expired since September 2012. Finally, a new version is currently being discussed in the House and Senate.

  Here are six ways the Farm Bill affects us. It dictates:

     - Which foods are grown and raised in the U.S.

     - Which American farmers and ranchers produce our food

     - In what quantities our foods are produced

     - What kinds of food ends up on grocery store and food bank shelves

     - Food prices

     - Who can have access to the food.

  It's expensive, and it's a big deal.

  Right now, the House and the Senate are deciding the Farm Bill's future. Our food policies for the next 10 years are being decided.

  As it stands today, there are several significant developments that could stem from the 2013 Farm Bill (including the GMO labeling vote discussed earlier): 1) huge cuts in food stamps for the poor, and 2) will end potentially expensive expansion of federally subsidized crop insurance.

  Also worked into the Farm Bill is a preemptive attempt to take away individual state's rights: 'Monsanto Protection Act 2.0'. Inserted into the Farm Bill 2013, the 'King Amendment' -- introduced by Iowa Representative Steve King -- would revoke the ability of individual states to pass GMO labeling laws.

  If passed, this could be the MOST IMPORTANT aspect of the Farm Bill.

  The Monsantos of the world see the writing on the wall. With non-GMO campaigns gaining more and more popularity, and labeling laws becoming a familiar sights on election ballots throughout the country, it's just a matter of time before states begin passing their own GMO labeling laws.

  Go here to voice your disapproval of the Monsanto Protection Act 2.0.

• Finally, the 'Oregon Monsanto Protection Act'.

  This one hits close to home. Another preemptive attempt by the biotech companies to strip Oregon counties of the right to ban genetically modified seed and seed products from being passed. The bill passed the Oregon Senate with a 17-12 vote, and been referred to the House Rules Committee. Further action: TBA.

  These things make me confused, and frustrated to write about. But this is the system we have allowed to develop. It makes you wonder, why are these insanely rich biotech companies getting so many helping hands from our government?

  If we want to make any changes, we have to be diligent and attentive to the policies our elected politicians (they work for us!) put in place. Although I'm growing tired of the constant petitions, I am thankful we have them. It allows us to voice our opinion to our senators and representatives. Sign them if you agree (Monsanto Protection Act 2.0 and Repeal the Monsanto Protection Act).

  I know, it's a lot of information to digest. But stay informed and involved. We're making progress!

RELATED POSTS:

GMO Labeling

GMOs
US Food Supply 

LINKS:

Monsanto Protection Act
The 2013 Farm Bill: What to Know, What to Do 

2013 Farm Bill

Monsanto Protection Act 2.0

Whole Foods & GMO Labeling

Whole Foods will require GMO labels by 2018.

Tweet
  It's become the popular thing. You could call it the trendy thing: GMO avoidance, and labeling.

  Most of you are well-aware that I am 100% behind sharing information about the US Food Supply, GMO labeling and transparency. It's imperative we know what is in the foods we are nourishing our bodies with (not to mention our kids').

  As word spreads about GMOs and their possible health and environmental effects, people around the country are becoming more and more fed up with the idea of not knowing what's in their food. Especially if it is potentially causing us harm. The cause is gaining more and more momentum. And that's a great thing.

  Roughly 90% of Americans think GMOs should be labeled. That is no new statistic, we've thought that for quite some time now. And around the world, 60 countries require labeling on products containing GMOs. Yet GMOs remain mostly unlabeled, and still dominate the US Food Supply.

  Public demand or no, the US government remains unable (unwilling?) to do anything to appease the voices, and put a label on GMOs.

  In fact, it seems the two sides are bearing in for a head-on collision. One side desperately trying to label the controversial foods, while the other desperately trying to keep the consumer in the dark.

Public Demand vs. Politics
  Just last week (March 26th), the Monsanto Protection Act (aka Section 735 in the Continuing Resolution spending bill) was passed by Congress, and then signed into law by President Obama. This new addition would bring biotech agriculture companies one step closer to ensuring their GMO crops will evade any serious scientific study or regulatory review.

  This provision will strip judges of their constitutional mandate to protect consumer rights and the environment, while giving 'big ag' the opportunity to plant new and untested genetically engineered crops.

  On the contrary, in November, a GMO labeling law (Prop 37) was narrowly rejected (losing by three percentage points) in California. Even after $45 million was contributed by the likes of Monsanto, DuPont, Pepsi, Coca-Cola, Kraft, Bayer, and so on, to oppose the GMO labeling initiative, for it to be so-narrowly defeated is encouraging.

  Almost immediately after Proposition 37 failed, more initiatives popped up at the state level throughout the country. Currently there are 20 states with volunteer groups working to get GMO labeling initiatives on their ballots for the coming elections.

  On one hand, we have our politicians and food industry leaders trying to increase the amount of GMOs in our food supply, while on the other, the public is asking for the ability to identify them.

  Who will win out? 

Whole Foods Enters the Fray
  To this point, grassroots efforts to label genetically modified foods have failed. But never has there been a big name behind the effort. Until now.

  Whole Foods, either looking to do right by the consumer, or capitalize on public sentiment, threw their hat into the ring before any other major grocer was willing.

  They announced in early-March, that within five years, all genetically modified ingredients for sale in its stores will be labeled. Whole Foods will be the first retailer in the US to take this step.

  "People have the right to know what is in their food," said Whole Foods Market founder and co-CEO John Mackey. What a novel idea.

  I think this is fabulous news, and something worth celebrating. But five years?! Whole Foods won't be require the labeling until 2018. As public opinion goes, it seems Whole Foods really didn't have much choice. They had already come under fire for not backing Prop 37 immediately, and felt even more pressure when GMOs were exposed in many of their products last year. 

  It seems, to avoid losing customers, Whole Foods made the jump. And with that jump, they will probably force big ag's hand into labeling their GMO foods. (And then maybe we can work on ridding GMOs from our food supply entirely.)

  Whatever Whole Foods' reasoning, requiring labeling is a great step for all of us. While it won't be a requirement until 2018, they are expecting many companies to comply earlier. Consumers shouldn't have to wait five years, but allowing companies the time to adjust and comply is fair. 

  It's unclear how Whole Foods' new requirement will impact the industry as a whole. The most logical result is that a ripple effect will occur, and labels will pop up in other stores across the nation as well. I guess we will see.

  Whole Foods or no, with the direction things are heading, it would seem labels will be either statewide or federal law, long before 2018. I hope so anyway.
 
  One way or the other, labels are on their way!

LINKS:

Q&A: Why Whole Foods Decided to Label GMOs

Prop 37 Opponents 

Monsanto Protection Act 

Whole Foods Promises to Label GMOs by 2018 

Follow Up: Banned Ingredients Remain in the US Food Supply

Tweet
  I came across an article this morning that touched on a topic I wrote about last week: food companies removing GMOs from products distributed in Europe, but leaving them in the same products sold in the US.

  Only this article is much-more detailed, and covers, not only GMOs, but also a whole list of ingredients that are banned around the globe, but remain in the American food supply.

  Please read the in-depth article by Vani Hari via 100 Days of Real Food. If you're like me, you'll find yourself deeply disturbed, upset, and searching for things to do.

  Once you've read the article, pass it along to friends and family! We cannot allow these practices to continue. Look what is at stake!

  Thanks,

LINKS:

Food Babe Investigates: How Food Companies Exploit Americans with Ingredients Banned in Other Countries 

Banned Ingredients Still Remain in the US 

RELATED POSTS:

M&M Analysis: Removal of GMOs in European distributed products

M&M Analysis: Altered Recipes in Europe Remove GMOs

The two wrappers.

Tweet
  I had a brilliant idea for a blog. At least I thought I did. It was a little exploratory project I thought would be interesting.

  I had two empty wrappers of Peanut M&Ms: one from Europe, and one from the US.

  I'd previously read articles about how food companies such as Kraft, Kellogg's, Heinz, Coca-Cola and Pepsi have altered recipes, and removed GMO ingredients, for distribution in Europe. So I wanted to see that practice in action.

  Obviously, these two wrappers would illustrate those changes, right? I simply had to translate and compare the ingredient lists from each wrapper.

  As it turned out, there was nothing glaringly different! I was bummed, and thought my project was a failure.

  Then the light bulb went on: there weren't any differences on the labels because the US still does not require genetically modified foods to be labeled (while countries in the European Union do)!

The ingredient list: basically the same. Or so it seems.

Different Label Requirements

  In the US, genetically modified sugar or canola oil, for example, is listed simply as 'sugar' and 'canola oil'.

  In countries where GMO labeling is required, the ingredient list says 'genetically modified sugar' or 'genetically modified canola oil'.

  In France, where I got the 'Euro-edition' wrapper, GMOs are required to be labeled. So the question is: why weren't the ingredients listed on my two Peanut M&M wrappers different?

Changing Recipes and Removing GMOs
  Well, that's simple. Because the candy company, Mars in this case, has altered its recipe and has taken out the genetically modified ingredients for European distribution. They want to avoid having the GMO label on their product, so they adjust.

  So they can do it! They just choose not to for their American consumers! To be honest, I find the practice extremely disturbing.

  Together Hershey's and Mars make up 70% of the US chocolate market, and spent $1.1 million combined to defeat California Right To Know (Proposition 37) last election. They would rather spend money to oppose labeling, than listen to the demands of US consumers and label GMOs.

  My goal isn't to take away your joy, and ruin your candy experience. I love Peanut M&Ms just as much as the next person. I just want to show that the food companies can make the same products without putting genetically modified ingredients in them.

"There's nothing sweet about GMOs".

Nothing Sweet About GMOs 
  They're not going to make any changes on their own however. They need a push. And it seems it needs to be a big push.

  We, as consumers, need to keep providing that push, and ask that genetically modified ingredients be removed from our food, just as it has been done in Europe.

  The push comes in the form of the 'there's nothing sweet about GMOs' campaign. It's simply asking Hershey's and Mars to break their ties with GMOs, and to remove them from products offered in the US.

Why no GMOs?
  I have previously written several posts (links listed below) that go into greater detail, but first and foremost: consumption of GMOs have never been proven safe. They have never been tested long term, and we are just now witnessing the potential health hazards that GM foods have on our health: spikes in infertility, obesity, Diabetes, Autism, Parkinson's, asthma, cancer, etc rates since GMOs' wide-spread introduction in the US in the late-1990s.

  There are environmental impacts as well: biodiversity loss, an increase in pesticide use, the emergence of super weeds that are threatening our farmlands, and the unintentional contamination of non-GMO and organic crops.

  And if you're curious, here are 10 GMO Ingredients in Candy:

1. Sugar (GMO Sugar Beets)
2. High Fructose Corn Syrup (GMO Corn)
3. Corn Starch (GMO Corn)
4. Soy Lecithin (GMO Soy)
5. Soybean Oil (GMO Soy)
6. Modified Food Starch (GMO Corn)
7. Fructose, Dextrose, Glucose (GMO Corn)
8. Cottonseed Oil (GMO Cotton)
9. Canola Oil (GMO Canola)
10. “Other” Ingredients (Isolates, Isoflavones, Food Starch, Vegetable Oil)

  I suppose my failed blog idea wasn't such a failure after all. Candy is just one small example of international companies changing their product to reflect the demands of their consumers; in Europe. It's done in many other products including soda, cereal, and other packaged foods.

  Here's my question: why can't American consumers enjoy the same 'luxuries' as European consumers?

 

RELATED POSTS:
Do You Know What GMOs Are? 
The Dangers of GMOs
The Harmful Effects of Soy
GMOs: What Can We Do?
California's Prop 37

LINKS: 
There's Nothing Sweet About GMOs Campaign
Going GM-Free. In Europe, But Not the US
Altered Recipes & Risks Associated with GMOs
GM Ingredients in Candy
Labeling Requirements: Europe
California Right to Know

Organic vs. Conventional: Which is 'Healthier'?

So many options in the produce section these days.

Tweet
  'Is Organic Food a Hoax?'

  I've seen this headline, and others like it, far too many times the past few months. And frankly, they have me irked. I find them misleading and irresponsible.

  A Stanford study, released early-September of 2012, claims to have found "little evidence of health benefits from organic foods" and that, organic foods are 'no healthier' than conventional (chemical) foods. The report spurred an influx of question marks hurled at the organic food industry.

  Almost immediately after the report was released, news reports, articles, blogs, you name it, questioned whether organics were worth the expense, and sported headlines stating organics were no healthier or 'better for you' than conventional products.

  Sadly, they've missed the point.

The Study
  Stanford University researchers conducted the "most comprehensive meta-analysis (review) to date of existing studies comparing organic and conventional foods." After analyzing the data, the researchers found "little significant difference in health benefits between organic and conventional foods."

  No "consistent differences" were found between vitamin content of organic and conventional products. Only one nutrient, phosphorus, was significantly higher in organic products.

  No difference in protein or fat content between organic and conventional milk were found, among other results.

  Alas the statement, "organic foods are no healthier than conventional food".

  Honestly, the findings are not surprising. Call me crazy, but the organic industry has never claimed its food to be more nutrient dense, or 'healthier' than conventional foods. 

What Does Healthier Mean to You?
  If 'healthier', to you, refers ONLY to nutritional content -- how many calories, grams of vitamin C, protein, fat, or carbohydrate a product has -- then of course, organic and conventional foods are not much different.

  The Stanford researchers narrowly defined 'health' solely based on those terms.

  The premise behind organic is NOT that they any MORE nutritious. It's what you're avoiding: the CHEMICALS, HORMONES, and ANTIBIOTICS that come with conventional foods.

Organic or conventional???

Real Findings
  Buried in the report was this small statement, however: "though consumption of organic foods can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure." THAT has been the claim, and will always be the claim of organic foods.

  It's not what you will GAIN from eating them, but what you will AVOID.

  Aside from the attention-grabbing headlines, these were the ACTUAL findings of the study:

• Organic foods were just as nutritious as conventional foods.
• Conventional produce were more likely to carry pesticide residues.
• Organic milk contained more heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.
• Conventional meat was more likely to be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

Conflicting Studies
  Nutrition research on organic foods are still in their beginnings. There have not been many studies conducted, and there are numerous variables that can have one affect or another on nutrient content. Ripeness of a piece of fruit, for example, directly affects nutritional value.

  Findings from another recent study, at Washington State, directly opposes the Stanford report. When comparing strawberries, it was found that organically grown berries had higher levels of antioxidants and vitamin C. But I'm willing to bet most missed those headlines.

  So who, and what, are we to believe?

  Above all, we're trying to avoid chemicals. Hopefully we all saw through the smoke screen, and remembered that is one of the goals in attaining 'health'.

LINKS:
Stanford Organic Study
Is Organic Food a Hoax?
Stanford Organics Study Misses the Point
Is Organic Food Worth the Expense?
Why Organic? Answer to Stanford Study
Debunking the Debunkers of Organics
Is the Stanford Organics Study a Threat to Our Health?
Consumer Reports: Don't Give Up on Organic Food
Organic Strawberries are Better

There's an App for That

Nike Training Club app

Tweet  
  Eating healthy, sticking with our workouts, finding new, refreshing recipes -- living a healthy lifestyle really can be overwhelming! It can consume a lot of time. And if we don't have that time in abundance, it's far-too-easy to slip into the status quo, the do-what-we've-always-done routine.

  As always, I just want to help! I've found a few tools that hopefully will help keep us on the healthy-living track.

  Many of us have made the jump, and now enjoy the benefits of using a smartphone. Whether it's an iPhone, an Android, or whatever else there is to choose from, there are a few more things that our smartphones could be doing to make our lives easier.

Fooducate app

  I'm sure everyone knows about the calorie counter, recipe finder, or fitness tip apps. But what about when you're in the grocery store, and you find yourself staring at a list of ingredients that requires a PhD in chemistry to understand? Or maybe you have a food allergy, and you're unsure if a product is okay for you to have? Or, it's late in the day, and you really want to get a workout in, but you can't get out of the house, or you find yourself fresh out of ideas?

  Fortunately for you, there really are apps for all that! And they're free! (And most are available for iPhone/iPad and Android.)

Food Apps

• Fooducate - Scan the bar code of any product in the grocery store, and this app will grade the product nutritionally, point out red flags (high fructose corn syrup, high salt, GMOs, etc), provide alternative suggestions, and more.
• True Food - Trying to avoid GMOs? This app will help you do just that! Though it looks to be a bit outdated, most the information remains relevant. 
• Shop No GMO - This app is a shopping guide to help you identify and avoid GMOs. Good idea, but the app freezes a lot. Hopefully they're working on a fix. 
• What's On My Food? - Lists and identifies the foods that have the most chemicals on them, which of those chemicals may be most-harmful, and how you can avoid them. Again, a little out-dated.
• Epicurious - Lets you search almost 30,000 healthy recipes from various resources. 
• Harvest to Hand - This app helps you find locally harvested food, farmers markets, specialty shops, etc.

True Food app.

Fitness Apps

• Nike Training Club (NTC) - Basically like having a personal trainer in your phone. You choose from dozens of set workouts that you can do almost anywhere. Has instructional videos. Push play, and go! (iPhone/iPad only)
• Nike BOOM - Similar to the NTC app, but geared more towards men, in my opinion. Can be sport-specific, and has modes for warm up, workout, and interval training. 
• MapMyRun GPS Running - Allows you to search for new running routes, maps/tracks your runs. Also available for cycling (MapMyRide).
• Livestrong.com MyPlate Calorie Tracker - Tracks your daily calories and exercise.
• Nike+ Running - Similar to MapMyRun. Tracks and maps your workouts. 

  These are just a handful of apps I either use myself, just downloaded and intend to use, or have read about. I'm sure there are many more than I haven't yet stumbled onto. And chances are, if there's something specific to you, or something you want to know more about, there's an app for that as well!

  Have you found an app that you use, and want to share? Let me know!

  LINKS:

8 Free Mobile Apps for Delicious and Healthy Eating
Top 50 Health Apps 

Dr. Oz's Take on GMOs

Tweet
  Maybe I'm beating a dead horse, or preaching to the choir. But I'm just trying to be thorough. I've tried my best to explain what GMOs are, and the health effects that may come along with them.

  But maybe you'll believe Dr. Oz and friends more than you do me (though I can't imagine why). ;)

  I can't embed the video here, so you'll have to head to their official website to check out Dr. Oz's take on whether GMOs are safe, the arguments FOR them, and how to avoid them.

    Here's to the visual learners. 

Voting Time! Yes on Prop 37

Tweet
  Election season is here. And shouting at us. If you're like me, you grew tired of the political ads, and the back-and-forth bickering long ago.

  But it's time to get on with it, and exercise our right to vote. (I actually voted last week -- my absentee ballot should be making its way back to the Election Office any day now!)

  As I wrote a few months ago, California is voting on Proposition 37 -- the GMO Labeling referendum. Since election day is fast-approaching, I wanted to issue a friendly reminder before votes are cast.

  California is trying to become the first state in the US to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods. As much as I wish this were a national vote (or one I at least could take part in), it's not. So it's up to voters in California to get the ball rolling.

  No pressure.

  Truth is, California's vote on Proposition 37 impacts the entire country. If the legislation passes in California, other states probably will follow suit, or the food industry might very well decide to reformulate their products nationwide, in order to avoid the liability that these labels might carry. Resulting in the removal of GMOs from their products and replacing them with alternatives, much like they have done in over 50 countries around the world, where GMOs are already labeled.

  As it is now, GMOs have zero regulations and were never even tested before they entered the market in the early-90s. GMOs quickly became a fixture in our daily diets and now makeup nearly 80% of the food in supermarkets. Even worse, GMOs have become nearly impossible to identify and avoid on a daily basis.

  Unforeseen consequences on both human health and the environment have pushed this issue to the forefront in recent years. The time is right to do something about it.

  It seems that there is a food movement on the verge of occurring in the US. We're questioning the food supply. We're reading labels. We're concerned about where our food comes from, and what we are putting into our bodies. We want real food.

  So isn't it time?

  Public polling shows that 90% of Americans want to know exactly what is in their food, and want GMOs labeled. We need to make that a reality.

  If you're a voter in California, please vote YES on Prop 37 (and if you have friends or family there, please pass this along to them!).

  After all knowledge is power. Knowing what is in our food allows us to make informed decisions!

RELATED LINKS:

New York Times: Vote for the Dinner Party

The Battle Over Genetically Engineered Food Heads to Voters
Proposition 37 Facts 

RELATED POSTS:

What are GMOs?

The Effects of GMOs

Just Label It

Dangers of Soy

Prop 37

GMO Labeling and California's Proposition 37

Just Label It Campaign

Tweet
  It's been a while since we talked about GMOs. And unfortunately, not much has changed in the past few months in regard to the prevalence, production, crops, or labeling of genetically modified foods in the US.

  But that could be changing, come November.

Proposition 37
  This election season, Californians will be voting on a mandatory labeling referendum of genetically engineered foods: Proposition 37. If passed, it would mean that genetically engineered foods, and food products, must be labeled in California.

  My question has always been this: why are the US (and Canada) the ONLY (wealthy) countries with ZERO regulations and labeling laws regarding GMOs?

  Since GMOs were never tested prior to entering the food supply, North Americans have essentially been the guinea pigs in an enormous experiment running 16 years strong. And unfortunately, we've seen a huge decline, across the board, in our health since the introduction of GMOs: chronic disease rates have nearly doubled. And food allergies, Autism, Diabetes, asthma, obesity, Parkinson's, cancer and infertility rates have exploded.

  But now that we are becoming more and more aware of GMOs, and what they are potentially doing to our health, it still remains nearly impossible to identify them, and thus, avoid them if you're in North America.

  A simple label would rectify that. Having a label, like the one found all over the world (50 other countries either require labels for GM foods, or ban them all together), would allow the consumer to make educated choices at the grocery store. No more guessing. No more blind faith in the food system.

  Imagine that. We'd know exactly what was in the food we were buying, and feeding to our kids. 

Why is California so important?
  It is believed that once one state passes a GMO labeling law, a precedent will have been set, and more states will be able to follow suit.

  And even though 90% of Americans believe GMOs should be labeled, politicians have repeatedly failed to serve their constituents (just two months ago, a GMO labeling amendment was voted down in the Senate). So we might as well do it ourselves.

  But it won't be easy.

  In the coming months, millions of dollars will be spent by 'big pesticide' and 'big processed food' companies to fight food labeling in California. In a report released this week, it was revealed that nearly $10 million has been contributed by companies such as Dupont Pioneer, Bayer Cropscience and BASF Plant Science (pesticide companies), and Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Nestle USA, General Mills and ConAgra, among others, to oppose Proposition 37.

  And just yesterday (August 15th), Monsanto contributed $4.2 Million to help defeat the labeling referendum.

  They obviously don't want their products 'outed' as being potentially unsafe. But then again, how long did the tobacco industry fight warning labels on cigarettes?

  Threats of lawsuits have also dissuaded states from pursuing GMO labeling bills. On two occasions  in 2012, Monsanto, the nations largest producer of GM seeds and the innovator of 'Round Up Ready" seeds, has threatened states (Vermont and Connecticut) with lawsuits if they dared to pass a labeling law.

  Needless to say, this election season will be very interesting (in more ways than one). And even though I don't live in California, I will be paying close attention to the Proposition 37 results.

  Please check out the infographic below (sorry, if it's difficult to read -- you can click on it to see it full size). It is a fabulous illustration of the pressing issues regarding GMOs (arguably the biggest issue facing our bodies and our planet)! 

  And one last thought, if GMOs are so safe, why not proudly display it on the front of packages?

GMOs in a nutshell.

 RELATED LINKS:

Labeling GMOs Frequently Asked Questions

Big Pesticide, Processed Food Companies Contribute $10 Million to Oppose Prop 37

Prop 37 Cheat Sheet 

RELATED POSTS:

Do You Know What GMOs Are?

The Effects of GMOs

Just Label It blog

Dangers of Soy