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

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 

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

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

The Natural Food Label

Nothing natural about Cheetos.

Tweet
  Labels, labels, labels -- they can be so confusing at the grocery store!

  We have 'USDA Organic', 'Natural', 'Gluten Free', 'Zero Trans Fats', 'Made with Real ...', 'Range Free', '100% Organic', and so on, and so on. And that's just the front of the box!

  So what do they all mean?

  Unfortunately, they're not easy to differentiate, or keep track of. The inclusion or exclusion of just one word, can make or break your 'healthy' purchases at the grocery store.

  Today, I'm going to tackle possibly the most-misleading, and most-useless label we have: 'Natural'.

  Anytime you see Natural on a food label -- in any capacity -- it doesn't mean a thing. The FDA has no definition, and no regulatory meaning for Natural. So whether the label says '100% Natural' or 'All Natural', it means the same thing: it's unregulated.

  In its description, the FDA says: "...it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth."

  Wow, no longer a product of the earth -- that's NOT natural.

  The ONLY time Natural has a meaning, is in regard to meat and poultry. But that definition isn't much clearer. The USDA has defined it as any product “containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product).”

  What does 'minimally processed' mean? And that definition doesn’t address whether or not the animals given hormones or antibiotics, or raised in confinement.

Organic vs. Natural vs. Conventional.

  However, if the label says 'Naturally Raised' it means "no growth promoters, antibiotics, animal by-products, or fish by-products" we used on the animal.

  Confused yet?

  Two things are clear: natural certainly does NOT mean Organic, and it doesn't mean it's healthier either. So let's lose those assumptions right away.

  By the FDA's 'definition', High Fructose Corn Syrup can be labeled as natural. So what can be in/on foods, and still be considered
natural? Pesticides, fertilizers,
and Genetically Modified ingredients (GMOs) for starters.

  And guess what -- those foods with the Natural labels, more often than not, are more expensive than foods without any sort of labeling.

  If you're spending extra money buying Natural, make the jump completely, and buy Organic.

  Organic is the only way you can be certain the foods you're buying contain no artificial coloring/preservatives/flavors, GMOs, and weren't sprayed with fertilizers and pesticides. Otherwise, save your money and buy conventional.

  Conventional and natural foods are roughly the same junk anyways.

  The labeling situation in the US is a mess. We, as consumers, regularly play guessing games when purchasing food at the grocery store. There is too much uncertainty; too many meaningless labels. Marketers are taking advantage of people who are making an effort to eat more-healthily, but can't keep track of the ever-changing lingo.

  Hope I was able to clarify the uselessness of our 'Natural' food labels!

Pin It


LINKS:
FDA Meaning of 'Natural'
Misleading Food Labels
Food Politics: Natural Food Label
5 Sneaky Super Market Tricks
Certified Organic Label Guide

Reclaiming Our Food Supply

Tweet  
  Let's rewind the clock five years. Now-President Obama was on the campaign trail vying to become the Democratic candidate. While making speech after speech, and meeting thousands of people across America, he vowed as President, to strive to: "let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they're buying." I could be wrong, but I think the majority of us agree with that statement. However, fast forward to the present, and we're still talking about the same issue. So what gives?

  This, by no means, is meant to be an assault on our president. But unfortunately, it's clear he made that statement before he discovered exactly who has a say in how our government is run. It's to show that we can have all the good intentions in the world, but our system is backwards.

  Our food supply is controlled by politics, and unfortunately, we have little-to-no-say in what happens. Through lobbyists and campaign contributions, corporations such as Walmart, Archer Daniels Midland, Tyson Foods, Monsanto, Cargill, and Kraft Foods have planted themselves front and center in the battle for control over what ends up on our plates. That stranglehold has wreaked havoc on the environment, our health, farmers, workers, and our future (follow related posts/links below for more information on GMOs and their effects).

  It seems easy enough: 93% of Americans have said they want GMO foods labeled (while it's estimated that 80% of processed foods in US stores contain GMOs), so what's the hold up? Put money aside, and do what's best for the people, right?

  But what we're seeing is Capitalism at it's best (or worst?). "Nearly all of human food production, seeds, food processing and sales, is run by a handful of for-profit firms which, like any capitalist enterprise, function to maximize profit and gain ever-greater market share and control."

  I'm no business major, but I guess that's called an oligopoly, or a near-monopoly:

• Four corporations, led by Walmart, control more than half of grocery sales. Walmart alone gets more than one quarter of every grocery dollar spent in the US.
• Three companies -- Monsanto, DuPont and Syngenta -- own 47 percent of the world's seeds. And they own 65 percent of the global proprietary maize market.
• Nearly every major commodity -- wheat, corn, soy -- is controlled by just four corporations.
• More than 90 percent of soybean seeds, and 80 percent of corn seeds used in the United States are sold by one company: Monsanto.

  Since 1996, the US acreage in GMO soybeans has grown from 7 to 94 percent, with GMO corn skyrocketing from 1 to 88 percent of cultivation. A trend began in 1996 in the US, and not for the better.

  A study released in September by the D.C.-based watchdog group Food & Water Watch reported that between 1999 and 2009, roughly $547 million was spent on lobbying and campaign contributions to ease regulatory oversight and prevent labeling of genetically engineered crops.

  There are so many issues, and so many question-marks; so where do we start? How do we effect change?

  One step is to continue to push for GMO food labels. If we can identify foods in the grocery store, it becomes that-much-easier for us to avoid. The Just Label It Campaign is nearing 1 million signatures. 17 states also have potential legislation in the works for GMO labeling. So progress is being made in that regard.

  However there are more levels in the system that need changing. Labeling is a start, but revamping our food supply system is what's really needed.

  Pressuring Congress to end agribusiness subsidies, and begin spending our money on sustainable healthy foods and farming. "Pass a 2012 Farm Bill that reinvests public money in an economically diversified, ecologically sustainable and more locally-oriented food system." There are dozens of steps that can be made, and these are just a few. Read more about those ideas, and get a clearer understanding of the big picture here.

  Another example of how the line between big Agriculture and politics has been blurred: FDA senior adviser, Michael Taylor (who was appointed by President Obama in 2009) formerly served as vice-president of Monsanto. Sign the petition asking President Obama to 'cease FDA ties to Monsanto.'

  Most European Union countries have managed to keep GMOs out of their grocery stores thus far. And when modified foods do wind up on store shelves, you able to easily identify them because of labeling. It seems Europeans are winning the battle to keep control of their food supply. Monsanto has halted sales of modified maize in France recently, and BASF announced it would move its GM development plant from Europe to the US.

  When government is involved, I'm sure we all think there are bigger fish to fry (economy, ongoing war, etc). But really, is there anything bigger than our health, and the health of our future generations?

  As food policy expert Michele Simon says, "Single-day actions here and there won't cut it when powerful food industry lobbyists are roaming the halls of Congress and state legislatures all over the nation every day of the year."

  We need to get involved, and start paying attention. Take control of our food system by reclaiming our  "land, our labor, and our economy from corporate monopolies." It's a big mountain to climb, but I think we can do it. I look at it this way, if you can affect just one person, you are doing your part!

  ~ Sabrina

Pin It


RELATED POSTS:
Do You Know What GMOs Are? 
The Effects of GMOs 
Dangers of Soy
Just Label It blog


LINKS:
Obama's GMO Food Labeling Promise
Michele Simon: Cracking the Politics of Food
Political Battle Over GMO Labels
GMO Foods

Big Food Must Go
Occupy Our Food Supply
Petition to Cease FDA ties to Monsanto
Just Label It