Food Choices for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet

All posts in Food to Avoid



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We lost on Proposition 37, but the campaign is just beginning! Guess who the opponents of Prop. 37 were? Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, ConAgra, BASF (“The Chemical Company”), Syngenta, and their allies, who put at least $40 million into deceptive ads to defeat Prop. 37 so they could keep earning billions by selling poison. It’s discouraging that their money swayed so many people, because the facts show GMO is not the deliverance they claim.

One of the claims made when genetically modified food was put on the market in the mid-1990s  (over the objections of FDA’s own scientists, by the way) was that crops engineered to withstand pesticides would permit a reduction in the amount of pesticides used. That should have been good for the environment, right?

Yes, if it had lasted more than a few growing seasons. But in fact, pesticide use has gone UP by millions of pounds per year, and I bet you can guess why. It’s called evolution. As has always happened with pesticides, the target creatures (bugs, for instance, or weeds) are not all killed—the strongest survive and produce the next generation. It doesn’t take long for organisms with short life cycles to become resistant to the pesticide in question. Growers solve this problem by using more chemicals, or stronger ones. For years this has been called the “pesticide treadmill” that farmers can’t seem to escape. (Unless they switch to organic).

Just last month a scientific study demonstrated that pesticide use has gone UP since GMOs were introduced. The author concluded, “Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.”

If that isn’t enough, pesticides are implicated in the mass deaths of millions of bees that pollinate our crops. That is definitely not sustainable! What you can do: keep alert for new strategies to defeat GMOs and the corporations that make billions from them.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the claims made when genetically modified food was put on the market in the mid-1990s  (over the objections of FDA’s own scientists, by the way) was that crops engineered to withstand pesticides would permit a reduction in the amount of pesticides used. That should have been good for the environment, right?

Yes, if it had lasted more than a few growing seasons. But in fact, pesticide use has gone UP by millions of pounds per year, and I bet you can guess why. It’s called evolution. As has always happened with pesticides, the target creatures (bugs, for instance, or weeds) are not all killed—the strongest survive and produce the next generation. It doesn’t take long for organisms with short life cycles to become resistant to the pesticide in question. Growers solve this problem by using more chemicals, or stronger ones. For years this has been called the “pesticide treadmill” that farmers can’t seem to escape. (Unless they switch to organic).

If that isn’t enough, pesticides are implicated in the mass deaths of millions of bees that pollinate our crops. That is definitely not sustainable!

Just last month a scientific study demonstrated that pesticide use has gone UP since GMOs were introduced. The author concluded, “Overall, pesticide use increased by an estimated 183 million kgs (404 million pounds), or about 7%.”

Show your support for food that is healthy for person and planet: Vote YES on Proposition 37.

Guess who the opponents of Prop. 37 are? Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, ConAgra, BASF (“The Chemical Company”), Syngenta, and their allies, who have put at least $30 million into deceptive ads to defeat Prop. 37 so they can keep earning billions by selling poison.

Vote YES on Proposition 37.




 

 

 

 

 

 

Proposition 37, on the ballot this November, says: “Commencing July 1, 2014, any food offered for retail sale in California is misbranded if it is or may have been entirely or partially produced with genetic engineering and that fact is not disclosed.” In other words, we will get to know if our food contains genetically modified organisms (GMO, sometimes called GE for genetically engineered). That’s all Prop 37 does: ask for a truthful label. If people still want to buy GMOs, they can.

Why is it so important to label genetically modified foods? Many people think it’s a basic right, to know what’s in their food. Doesn’t this seem reasonable to you? There are supposed advantages: According to the World Health Organization, “All GM crops available on the international market today have been designed using one of three basic traits: resistance to insect damage; resistance to viral infections; and tolerance towards certain herbicides.”  GMO means that among other things crops are modified so they can withstand more pesticides. Corn, for instance, can now survive huge doses of Monsanto’s pesticide Roundup – because of genes from other organisms. Pesticides, which some GMOs are created to encourage, are linked to Parkinson’s disease in humans and definitely poison our air, soil, and water.

Millions of dollars are being spent to defeat Prop 37 by big chemical and food manufacturing companies: Monsanto, DuPont, Dow AgroSciences, ConAgra, Grocery Manufacturers Association, Cargill, BASF Plant Sciences, and dozens more are funding attacks on the proposition.

Here are their “reasons” to vote no: “Food will become more expensive” – how? They claim “Prop. 37 would add another layer of bureaucracy and red tape for food producers and increase food costs.” What bureaucracy? Oh, they must mean the existing agencies that prosecute fraudulent advertising. Another reason: It’s an expensive “payday for trial lawyers.” Well, only if companies fail to obey the law.

And the most hilarious “reason”: a few exemptions in the proposed law are “politically motivated.” We are shocked, shocked! Advocates of truthful labels are “politically motivated”!  This accusation comes from companies that contribute millions to defeat this proposition and other attempts to regulate them, contribute to politicians’ election campaigns, hire public relations firms to “spin” the truth and slime the messengers, and offer lucrative jobs to regulators so they’ll leave government and join the corporations.

This last is called the “revolving door” and is very real.  Here are some people who have worked for Monsanto AND held government jobs (before or after): Marcia Hale, Monsanto’s Director of International Government Affairs. Under President Clinton, she was on the senior White House staff. Mickey Kantor, on the board of Monsanto, was Secretary of Commerce. Carol Tucker-Foreman was a lobbyist for Monsanto and in the White House department of Consumer Affairs. Margaret Miller was a supervisor at a Monsanto Chemical laboratory, and became the Deputy Director of the Food and Drug Administration. That’s only part of a very long list. To see the rest of the folks who played both sides, go here  and click “Monsanto’s Government Ties.”

We must sadly admit that our regulatory agencies are hopelessly outgunned – and that’s why Prop 37 was started in the first place. Politicians won’t do it, regulators are being bullied or bought off – now it’s up to us, the citizens, to demand a simple thing: honestly labeled food.

To find out more, go to The Organic Consumers Association and California Right to Know.   To see what pesticide and food corporations have to say, go to noonprop37.com. (Notice it’s “.com”, a commercial site funded by Monsanto, Dow, Grocery Manufacturers, and their allies). For general information on GMOs, visit the World Health Organization or The Human Genome Project.

For yourself, for your children, for the environment, and for democracy, on November 6 vote YES on Proposition 37.




 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Organic is not more expensive than other food — if you factor in the cost of environmental damage caused by conventional industrial agriculture. Pesticides, herbicides, and the waste from billions of farmed animals foul our air, soil, and waterways. Here are some interesting figures about the true cost of food.

A box of breakfast cereal may sell for $3.50, but its environmental impacts (from air and water pollution, greenhouse gases, waste, etc.) make the true cost $4.05, according to the watchdog trucost.com. You may pay $3.00 a liter for fruit juice, but it really costs $3.19. The most shocking statistic I saw on this site was for cheese. A 12-ounce hunk of cheese that sets you back $6.50 at the cashier should really cost $7.68.

What about beef? We’ve known for a while that livestock (animals grown for food) produce as much greenhouse gases as all forms of transportation put together. The Center for Investigative Reporting has just released a report on hamburgers, which contains some startling statistics. Did you know that we eat over 40 billion burgers a year? That we use about 8 times as much land to grow food and pasture for animals, as we do to grow food directly for humans? That a quarter-pound of beef took 450 gallons of water to produce? That cows in the U.S. produce half a billion tons of manure a year? Check out the report for the rest of the story.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So who pays the difference between market cost and true cost? We all do. As taxpayers, we subsidize the meat, dairy, and egg industries, which are among the worst polluters. As citizens, we breathe the foul air and pay to clean up the mess.  And this doesn’t even include the medical bills caused by industrial agribusiness.

What we can do: Keep growing the organic marketplace by buying organic whenever you can. Do it for yourself and the planet. Besides, as the organic sector grows, prices are expected to come down due to the classic factor “economy of scale.” Vote for those who support environmental laws and regulations. Especially support Proposition 37 this November!




Ah, back to nature. Cooking and eating outdoors like our ancestors…. But this rustic scene is not so innocuous. Each July 4, millions of people light their barbecue grills, burning the equivalent of 2,300 acres of forest, emitting nearly 225,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. Particulates fill the air. Grease burns onto the grills and harsh cleansers are used to clean them. Plastic, paper, and glass trash litter our picnic areas. We throw food away rather than carry it home, accustoming wild animals to finding food in waste bins or thrown on the ground. This is not safe for them or for us.

We can do better than this – and here’s how:

 

 

 

 

 

The barbecue: Lighting up the fire doesn’t have to be a soot- and gasoline-smell-producing act. Don’t use lighter fluid to start the barbecue–it contributes to smog. Use a chimney starter instead, a metal cylinder with a handle into which you put your charcoal briquettes. They heat up much faster and require no lighter fluid. Douse them with water after you’re done cooking. This helps prevent fires, and saved briquette pieces make good fixings to start the next barbecue.

The fixins’: Instead of meat, grill tasty vegetable skewers. Healthier for you and the planet! Corn on the cob can be grilled in its husk if you first soak it in water. This eliminates the need for aluminum foil.

The cleanup: Bring reusable utensils and then take them away with you. If you do use disposable plates, utensils, and cups, use ones made from cornstarch or other biodegradable materials. Then take them home and compost them.  Put leftovers in reusable containers and take them home to eat later.  Recycle everything recyclable. Properly dispose of all litter. Clean your grill promptly, using warm water and baking soda, before the burned food hardens and you are tempted to use harsh chemical cleaners.

Afterwards, relax and enjoy food and energy independence!




You probably heard that on Wednesday, New York City announced that it would enact a ban on the sale of huge sodas (and some other sugar-heavy drinks) at some public places, namely movie theatres, restaurants, and street vending carts. The Center for Science in the Public Interest applauded the move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The outcry has been deafening. You can read some of the “comments” appended to the New York Times story here. And as you can imagine, the sugary drinks industry is complaining.

Until recently, I personally have guzzled hundreds of gallons of caffeine-laden colas, some with sugar and some with equally perilous artificial sweeteners, so I think I can offer a somewhat balanced view. Let’s look at three facts:

  •  The obesity epidemic is dangerous to the health of individuals and to the future of our nation’s health care system. (we spend $14 billion a YEAR on obesity-related diseases such as diabetes).
  • Sugary drinks have empty calories.
  • People often don’t do what’s in their own best interest.

It’s the last one that starts the heated discussions. On a radio talk show Wednesday, I heard nutrition expert Liz Applegate criticize the move, saying that it’s a question of personal responsibility. Well, she has an impressive resume, but the “personal responsibility” line is exactly what all the makers of dangerous things (cigarettes, guns, pink slime burgers) say when threatened by attempts to curb their freedom to sell their products.

Two years ago, San Francisco banned the sale of sugary sodas in vending machines on city property. Somehow, the sky did not fall.

As a psychologist specializing in eating disorders for 25 years, I saw first-hand how people struggle to make good on their intentions to be healthy. And that doesn’t even count the people who aren’t even trying to eat healthily. As an academic who has published journal articles on obesity and read the research, I’m alarmed by the danger to our country.

What do you think? Obesity costs YOU in the form of your health insurance premiums, even if you aren’t overweight or obese. Should this ban proceed?