Food Choices for Healthy People and a Healthy Planet

All posts in In the News



 

 

 

 

 

 

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!




Good news: Lots of people are interested in helping us know which products and services are sustainably produced. They study supply chains, ingredients, and processes, and certify, or give a green label to, products that meet their standards.

Bad news: There are literally hundreds of such certifying organizations! This is actually good news, but the overflow of players makes it difficult to know which labels are the most meaningful, since there are phony or misleading labels. As I explained in The Green Foodprint, “greenwashing” is the practice of pretending to be greener than you are. For instance, “free range” supposedly means that the cow or chicken is able to go outdoors. “Outdoors” might be a concrete feedlot or a small space accessible to only a few of the thousands of birds confined inside a gigantic warehouse.

Good news: The US has a single nationwide label for organic food – USDA Organic. Bad news: USDA is corrupted by politics, and the USDA organic label is constantly facing threats to its integrity from agribusiness megacorporations.

Good news: Destructive corporations recognize that PEOPLE WANT SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTS – but the corporations then cheat and cut corners to fool us into buying products that are not really sustainable. There are lots of ways they do this – bribing and threatening politicians and regulators, setting up phony consumer groups that parrot their spin, and inventing phony certifiers. Your solution: Earthwatch.org has a wonderful web page that evaluates some of the labels you’re most likely to see.

Briefly, the ones Earthwatch praises include USDA organic (despite its flaws), Country of Origin Labeling, Dolphin-Safe, Fair Trade Certified, Food Alliance Certified, and Marine Stewardship Council.

Good news: Attorneys who won big cases against the tobacco industry are now tackling Big Food. See the New York Times article here. Let’s hope they help clean up our big-food industry. In the meantime, you can help by voting for California’s proposition 37 this November, which would require GMO (genetically modified organisms) to be labeled.




 

 

 

 

Not long ago (March 13), I praised the possibility of eating one’s packaging – namely, the natural kind, such as the skin of apples and other fruits, or the created kind, like ice cream cones. Created edible packaging (in the form of plastic-like films made from tomatoes and what not) has been in the pipeline for years, but this week on a Grist post I found that someone had taken this to a delightful extreme and invented an espresso coffee cup made out of a cookie. Go here for the photo.

There’s also a wonderful book called Play With Your Food by Saxton Freymann and Joost Elffers that shows you how to turn fresh fruits and vegetables into marvelous little sculptures.    I loved this book so much that I got a friend to use this inspiration to make centerpieces at my wedding. You can see one in this post. This isn’t exactly sustainable eating, but let’s stretch a point and call it good food anyway. Nine years later, my friends and family still mention those centerpieces!

Happily, the book has a sequel, Food Play, with even more vegetable magic. Food is often a serious topic (I plead guilty) but there’s nothing wrong with letting out the innocence and playfulness of childhood sometimes. In a future post, I’ll share some of the other neat foodplay ideas and websites I’ve come across.




This month’s E Magazine has an encouraging story by Melinda Tuhus about a positive development in the West Bank. The Palestine Fair Trade Association has organized olive growers into cooperatives, so they receive a fair wage for their work and have their own brand, Canaan Fair Trade, which is sold in stores like Whole Foods. Said one member, “The people here [in the association] are very nice and they treat the farmers very well,” he says. “And they give scholarships to the children of the farmers.”  Canaan Fair Trade also produces other Middle Eastern delicacies like tahini, couscous, fig spread, and more. Check out the website to see all they do in their community!

 

 

 

 

Here are some places in the Bay Area where you can buy Canaan products:

 GLOBAL EXCHANGE STORE
2840 College Avenue,  Berkeley, CA 94705

RAINBOW GROCERY COOPERATIVE
1745 Folsom Street, San Francisco, CA 94103

 COUNTRY SUN NATURAL FOODS
440 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA

Just as heartwarming to those of us who care about good, sustainable, fair trade food, I’ve written elsewhere about several collaborations among Israelis, Jordanians, and Palestinians:

Friends of the Earth/Middle East is an organization of Israeli, Jordanian, and Palestinian environmentalists who work together to clean up the Jordan River and the Dead Sea. This organization also promotes healthy food, solar energy, and eco-tourism.”

 

 

 

 

 

“Yossi Leshem, an Israeli bird expert and director of the International Center for the Study of Bird Migration, was troubled by the deaths of hundreds of birds in northern Israel. The birds were being killed by the chemicals used to eradicate the rats that were eating the farmers’ crops. Leshem persuaded a kibbutz to try a different solution. Barn owl boxes were installed to lure owls to make their homes at the kibbutz, and within a few years the rat problem was solved. An Ohio Jewish community group gave funds so the kibbutz members could donate building materials for owl nesting boxes to their Jordanian neighbors. Little by little, overcoming obstacles, the project is helping former enemies reach out to one another.”

May food be a bridge to peace.




 

 

 

 

 

A few weeks ago, Audubon California conservation biologist Monica Iglecia got her 15 minutes of fame – she was written up in two news stories that were highlighted in the week’s Bureau of Land Management newsletter. The first appeared in the AppealDemocrat, the local newspaper of Sutter and Yuba counties, and described her visit to a California rice farm. If you have images of rice paddies covered by inches of water, you’re on the right track. Rice does require a lot of water to grow, and California has half a million acres devoted to growing rice.

Where do birds come in to this picture?  So many acres of wetlands have been filled in and converted to human use that migratory birds can have a tough time finding places to stay over during their migrations. Solution: get rice farmers to make their fields more hospitable to our flying friends. Turns out this is eminently doable, and the Migratory Bird Conservation Partnership is making it happen. Said Ms. Iglecia, “That’s exciting when you see chicks because you know the nesting efforts are working.”

 

 

 

 

One thing rice farmers can do is flatten the tops of their water-retaining levees, so birds can find a place to build nests. Another is to leave grass and weeds at the fields’ borders, instead of pulling them out, thus providing bird habitat. For a great photo, go here.

Ms. Iglecia was also interviewed by an AP reporter and the two saw an avocet nest on top of such a levee. “It’s a full clutch of four eggs,” said Monica Iglecia, a shorebird biologist with Audubon California, looking through binoculars. “This is why we do this work. It’s exciting to see.”

Let’s hope that soon all these wonderful partners will create a “bird-friendly” label for rice packages, so we can seek out rice from growers that are hospitable to the birds that pass through our state.