http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

I have posted recently on Europe's struggle to keep genetically engineered crops out of the the EU, but I'm not sure that I've communicated effectively the lengths that the United States and our biotechnology industry (Monsanto, Pioneer, Dupont, etc) will go to in their efforts to spread biotechnology around the world. This article (http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2941452420080129?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0) is case in point. US trade representatives are manipulating World Trade Organization (WTO) authority in an effort to force the EU to accept biotechnology. If the EU wants to preserve biodiversity and maintain GMO-free land, why should they not have that right? The "Home of the Free" is most definitely becoming the "Home of the you'll-do-what-we-tell-you-to-or-else!" --- and I for one, don't like it.

And you know what really gets me? On the one hand our goverment is pushing biotechnology on the world and claiming the wonders and safety of its use --- and on the other, they put out calls for research proposals to investigate its safety. USDA CSREES (Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service) - the branch of USDA that funds most food research - released this call this week: http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/biotechnologyriskassessment.cfm. Its purpose is to assist Federal regulatory agencies in making science-based decisions about the effects of introducing genetically modified organisms into the environment. Investigations of effects on both managed and natural environments are relevant. Applications must address one of the following areas: 1) Identify and develop practices to minimize risks associated with genetically engineered organisms; 2) Research methods to monitor the dispersal of genetically engineered organisms; 3) Research to increase knowledge about the characteristics, rates, and methods of gene transfer that may occur between genetically engineered organisms, and related organisms; 4) Perform assessments to provide analysis which compares impacts of organisms modified through genetic engineering to other types of production systems.

Does this not effectively indicate that there's still much that needs to be understood before releasing the technology on the earth?


What you can do:

1. Sign the anti-biotech petitions that are linked at the right side of Food Karma Alert:  http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/.
2. Urge your reps in Congress to protect the genetic integrity of non-GM crops.
3. Buy organic - our purchases are the most powerful way to force change in production.

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

I just received an update from the Cornucopia Institute warning against the use of infant formula supplemented with DHA/ARA that has been extracted from laboratory-grown fermented algae and fungus and processed utilizing a toxic chemical, hexane. Here's a link to the full report: http://cornucopia.org/DHA/DHA_FullReport.pdf

Bulletin from Cornucopia:
Lab-MADE "IMITATION" BREAST MILK PUTS INFANTS AT RISK, STUDY SHOWS
A new study shows that efforts to imitate human breast milk in the laboratory by fortifying infant formula with oils from algae and fungus are a marketing gimmick that puts infants at risk. Study findings include:

1. Serious risks in premarket safety tests ignored
2. Infants seriously sickened by what some medical professionals describe as the "diarrhea formula"
3. Virulent and long-term diarrhea recognized as grave health risk to infants
4. Industry accused of misleading marketing/advertising-discouraging breast-feeding
5. Novel oils extracted with a toxic solvent that is banned in organic production, hexane
6. Benefit to cognitive and visual development of infants is mixed at best

NPR newscast: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/25/baby_formula

I'll try and explain:

• DHA stands for docosahexanoic acid and ARA stands for arachadonic acid, both of which are long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) that have been implicated to have beneficial impact on brain development in fetuses. Both are important components of the human brain and eyes and are naturally present in human breast milk. *Note: you may recall the link between these 2 substances and seafood as certain fish are good sources --- but, the warning there is to be careful not to consume too much due to contamination with mercury (see prior posts on this blog or go to: http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/effects.asp).
• Infant formula does not contain DHA or ARA unless it is added by the manufacturer. One of the sources of these substances is extraction from algae and/or fungus and that is at least one method by which Martek Biosciences (http://consumer.martek.com/) obtains the DHA/ARA product is markets.
• FDA has not approved use of this type of DHA/ARA extracts (however, they have not prohibited its use). Imagine that! The same agency that approves cloned food based on very limited data, did not approve these extracts due to negative health impacts founds in several studies -- I don't know about you, but that surely gives me reason to pause before using such products.
• These extracts do not fall within the standards for use in organic foods; however, upon petition to the USDA National Organic Program to use it in organic foods Martek received no response. In such a case, no response would indicate that the ingredient is NOT approved for use in organic food; however, some companies are putting it into organic foods anyway: Happy Baby organic baby food, Horizon and Stremick's organic milk, and NuGo organic nutrition bars are examples, so it will require additional work to avoid said ingredients. This usage is ILLEGAL and Cornucopia is petitioning to get it stopped.

What you can do:

1. Contact Martek (http://consumer.martek.com/contactus/), Mead Johnson (https://www.meadjohnson.com/app/iwp/B2CLoadContactFormInfo.do?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&csred=1), Horizon (http://www.horizonorganic.com/site/contactus/index.html), Happy Baby (http://www.happybabyfood.com/ContactUs.html), NuGo (1-888-421-2032, contact@nugonutrition.com, http://web.nugonutrition.com/), Similac (http://rpdmail.com/?site=WAC_CU) , PBM Nutritionals, which makes private label formula (802.527.0521), and Earth's Best by Hain Celestial (http://www.earthsbest.com/about_eb/contact_us.php)
2. Support stronger organic standards - contact your reps in Congress (info below) and the USDA National Organic Program (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/NOP/contacts.html)
3. There is hexane-free DHA available (at least some improvement over the other process): http://www.naturesonedirect.com/dhaarafaacsu.html; http://www.spectrumorganics.com/. I'll continue to research and update...

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

Okay, so first off, 2 points that I feel should have prevented cloned food from even being evaluated for safety by FDA:

1. Cloning is not needed. There are 100 million cattle in the United States alone! There is nothing to suggest that they are somehow impeded from breeding to produce more. Since it is not needed and since the majority of the American public (you know, the people who eat it) are emphatically against it --- FDA should stop wasting their time approving such nonsense and spend more time on matters that need attention, like inspecting imported food products, ensuring a safe food supply and educating the public on good nutrition (of course, at this point it's debatable they are capable of doing any of that!).
2. There are only approximately 600 living cloned cattle (many others born and suffered premature, likely painful, deaths) in the U.S. Compared to the 100 million cattle in the country and the 40 million or so that are slaughtered each year!, how could this possibly be enough to base safety for the American public to consume --- AND not even be made aware of it!

This is flat out WRONG on so many levels and YOU as consumers should push back HARD. If you knew how callous these "scientific experts" who are doing these ridiculously lacking "risk assessments" are toward your thoughts and feelings on this matter... Let's just say it's shocking. And they don't care one iota about the welfare of the animals themselves. The process doesn't allow for it.

From a policy perspective the complete idiocracy of all this is that they agencies in charge (FDA and USDA) are once again contradicting one another (which, is nothing new --- I see it daily --- the contempt that the 2 groups have for one another --- it's like they are happiest when they are proving the other wrong --- makes you feel safe, eh?). They have this staged joint release to say that meat from clones is safe for you to eat --- and then USDA turns around and requests that farmers continue the voluntary moratorium and not release cloned meat into the food supply. Meanwhile a few producers come forth and admit that it's already out there anyway!! http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/15/AR2008011501555.html

The latest issue revolves around labeling: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/19/AR2008011902233.html ---- this is your greatest hope as consumers at this point (of course, I feel fortunate not to count myself in the "consumer" group at this point --- since I don't eat meat --- try it -- it's really pretty awesome!). Senator Mikulski is your ally and I encourage you to reach out to your Congress men and women --- seriously --- do it!

What you can do:

1. Sign the petitions in the prior posts provided on http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/
2. Contact your Congressional Reps and Senators --- info on doing so is provided at this blog (http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/) -- and in this case, I encourage you to call and write --- and forward this info onto everyone you know.
3. Go vegetarian! Or at least reduce your meat consumption (resources provided in the right side column of this blog  (http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/).
4. Buy organic!! The organic farmer is committed to do his best to keep his farm free of GMOs, clones, antibiotics and hormones. Again, resources in the right column at http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/.
5. And, one other thing you might consider --- is supporting John Edwards for President -- he's the only one (that I know of) who has addressed these issues and supports a higher quality food system.

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

Colorado has become the 4th state to phase out the use of gestation crates for pigs (http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=0DA1C36E-E105-E776-8A9C1C3E120FCEA0). 3 other states - Arizona, Florida and Oregon - have taken initiative to ban their use as has the largest pork producing company, Smithfield Farms. It's great that these 4 states have done this; however, they are not the largest pork producing states. The top 10 are Iowa, North Carolina, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas and Ohio in descending order.

Gestation crates are used to house female pigs (sows) while they are pregnant, which is much of their lifespan (http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/totc/). These crates are made of metal with concrete floors and do not even allow enough space for the animal to turn around. They are inhumane and should be eliminated.

What you can do:

1. Click here for more information: http://www.hsus.org/farm/camp/totc/; http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming_pigs.asp
2. For California click here to engage in a campaign to end crates: http://www.humanecalifornia.org/
3. Contact state officials in the top 10 states and push to end use of gestation crates.

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

In 1938 the U.S. government passed the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which gave FDA the mandate to ensure a safe food supply. In 1958 the FDA created GRAS (generally recognized as safe) - a designation for food substances that are considered safe for general use in foods. At the time there was a long list of substances, like salt, sugar, etc. that had a long history of use in foods and were "grandfathered" in and considered safe. Any new substance to be added after 1958 has been required to undergo review by "experts" to verify their safety. The interesting caveat here is that the company that produces the substance can "self-affirm" it GRAS and unless the FDA finds fault and takes action to stop its use, it goes forward for general use. And for any substance to actually go through a review by FDA to affirm it GRAS is nearly out of the question at this point due to the high beauracracy and low staff/resources available for such work at FDA. So, even though I know many of the folks doing such work and know that they are good people with good intentions, I find it troubling that a company can declare a new ingredient safe on their own accord, when the entity that stands to benefit most is the company itself - and the motivation for pushing an ingredient through as GRAS is to avoid the food additive approval process, which can take many years.

Recently 10 GRAS filings received "no questions" letters from FDA:

1. actinidia arguta fruit extract;
2. lipase enzyme preparation from Rhizopus oryza (to produce tailored triglycerides for infant formula);
3. tailored trigylcerides containing approximately 12% medium-chain fatty acids (for home cooking oil);
4. bacteriophage P100 preparation from Listeria innocua (used as an antimicrobial to control Listeria monocytogenes in food);
5. ammonium phosphatide (emulsifier for chocolate);
6. xanthan gum with lower pyruvate levels (used as a emulsifier/thickener);
7. L-valyl-L-prolyl-L-proline and L-isoleucyl-L-propyl-L-proline from cow's milk (used in orange juice, yogurt and nutrition bars);
8. Phospholipase A2 enzyme preparation from Streptomyces violaceruber expressing a gene encoding phospholipase A2 from the same species (used as an enzyme to hydrolyze soy lecithin);
9. hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (an emulsifier/thickener);
10. asparaginase enzyme preparation from Aspergillus niger (used to reduce asparagine levels in L-asparagine and carbohydrate containing foods heated above 120 degress C). *This was developed to stop the formation of acrylamide - a toxic comp0und that forms in foods that contain both asparagine, an amino acid, and carbohydrate when heated.

Okay, so all I have to say is "YUMMY!" ; - ) *insert sarcasm here.

That said, these "ingredients" are not all bad --- in fact, some are probably completely harmless to our human/animal health and that of the environment --- but where does it end? And how do we know for sure? I don't think that it should be left up to the corporations to provide the stewardship --- the conflict of interests is just too influential. My recommendation might be that FDA, EPA and EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority), with the input of NIH, consumer groups and other experts, put together a checklist of sorts that requires a holistic review including animal, human and environmental impact and that this checklist serve as the basis for analysis of new ingredients and that the results be made publically available in a manner and form that is accessible to the consumer. Current methods are too narrow in scope and do not consider unintended consequences that may result from the rush to use that comes from the need to be first to market in order to profit from development of these technologies. To date, when such panels of experts are pulled together they are usually from the same narrow perspective --- all scientists in the food profession --- I would suggest that going forward this should be broadened to include those with environmental, psychological, and other backgrounds.

What you can do:

1. Read food labels! The more ingredients listed that do not resemble what you would consider food, the less I would recommend you consume.
2. Buy organic and support tough organic standards (see sign and click petitions to the right side of the blog). Organic standards allow less use of sythetic ingredients.
3. Go vegetarian! or at least reduce your meat consumption. Eating more fruits and vegetable and preparing your meals at home will reduce consumption and thereby demand for such science-derived food products.
4. Urge your Congress reps to demand tougher standards for food, including the revision of the GRAS process (info on outreach to Congress at the bottom of the blog).

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

There are several food crops, canola (rapeseed) being one of them, that are mostly cultivated using genetically engineered seed. So, you'd be hard-pressed to find canola-containing products in the grocery that have not succomb to biotechnology. And now we can thank Monsanto and the Canadian court system for ensuring that we never will (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5icT7pL0rT_oJafq8q_6hGGH5woiA).

A handful of farmers in Canada have been trying to grow non-GM canola and due to the widespread planting of GM seed, they can't. This is a prime example of the unintended consequence (or is it intended?...) of GM crops. They don't stop at the end of the field --- our ecosystem does not work that way. The genetic material from canola in neighboring fields is transferred by what is termed "pollen drift", meaning that pollen from one field is transferred to another - or is carried by the bees themselves.

Regardless of the safety of GM seeds/plants/food it saddens me to think that these farmers cannot hold true to the genetic integrity of nature, even if they want to.

What you can do:

1. Sign the anti-biotech petitions that are linked at the right side of this blog.
2. Urge your reps in Congress to protect the genetic integrity of non-GM crops.
3. Buy organic - our purchases are the most powerful way to force change in production.

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...

This article (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/world/asia/15fish.html?_r=4&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin) appeared in the Monday edition of the NYTimes. It provides an overview of the current fish farming situation in China and does a fantastic job demonstrating the intimate relationship between the environment, agriculture and food (human) health.

China produces ~70% of the world's farmed fish (115 billion pounds of seafood in 2006!) and farmed fish accounts for ~30% of the fish consumed worldwide (http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/oceans/fish-farming). The U.S. is dependent on imports for 80% of its seafood needs. So, there's a decent chance that the fish you eat (if you eat fish) was imported from a fish farm in China. And in the first 11 months of 2007 there were 43 rejections of fish imported from China due to contamination with illegal veterinary drugs. Testing has also found heavy metals, including lead and mercury, flame retardants, and pesticides among other pollutants.

Why do they need to use such illegal drugs? Because the water on the fish farms is polluted and the fish can't survive without major amounts of pharmaceuticals to fight off all the infections they're prone too.

And why is the water so polluted? Because China has experienced tremendous growth with heavy emphasis on economics and very little on stewardship of any kind (sound a little familiar? I mean, come on, let's not pretend that the U.S. has been a bastion of environmental stewardship...). So, their water supplies are highly contaminated by sewage, industrial waste and agricultural runoff.

A telling and important line from this article reads "Environmental degradation, in other words, has become a food safety problem..." --- and we have the same problem happening in the developed world, just at a much slower rate.

It gets worse. The current solution in China is to move the fish farms away from the coast inland to areas that until now have gone relatively untouched. And all of these fish farms exacerbate the environmental problem by discharging more polluted water into the earth. The article tells of 72 giant eel farms in Sanming (referred to as "pristine") that produce 5000 tons of seafood a year using 280 million gallons of water a day and then discharge it as wastewater the next day.

What you can do:

1. Buy local, buy organic, buy consciously.
2. Pressure Congress to enforce strict import regulations and assist importers with developing sustainable agriculture practices.
3. Reduce your meat consumption --- or better yet, go vegetarian!  ; - )

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

Check this out! Fantastic work being done by an architect/design/chemistry team - McDonough Braungart Design Chemistry (http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm). Together they are working to help companies move from the traditional "cradle-to-grave" approach to the eco-friendly "cradle-to-cradle" approach. There's an interview with McDonough in the latest issue of Co-Op Quarterly: http://www.coopamerica.org/pubs/caq/

The way they make this happen is fascinating and makes so much sense. They look at human design through nature's lenses and ask the basic question: "Is the product going to go back to the natural world in soil or the air?" If so, then it is characterized as a biological nutrient going into the biological metabolism (earth and us). If the product is going back to technology (computer, car, stereo, etc) then they characterize it as a technical nutrient within the technological metabolism (stuff!).

They have started a certification program and have already helped the US Postal Service convert the "Priority Mail" and "Express Mail" packages to get them closer to zero waste (they're rated Silver Tier -- so, there's still room for improvement). They did this by applying a set of 39 certification criteria for human and environmental health and working with the 200 suppliers and 1400 ingredients that go into making the packages. This is very similar to how things work in the food industry.

This is the direction that I've been trying to get my colleagues in the food industry to embrace, only I didn't have the vocab developed to communicate it well ---- so, I'm thrilled to come across this effort.

What you can do:

• RECYCLE! http://earth911.org/; http://www.epa.gov/recyclecity/; http://www.obviously.com/recycle/

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

It seems that agreement has been reached to allow for consideration of 20 amendments from each party (http://www.brownfieldnetwork.com/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=B6423FFF-058E-DAE1-DBCB712F70A74E83). 40 amendments!! Is it any wonder that this legislation is at such an impasse? Most of these amendments are based on best interests of individual (sometimes collective) states, but not the United States, let alone the world.

This means that that it's probable that the Senate will take up debate on these amendments this coming week. It's still unlikely that we'll see completed legislation this year, but it is movement forward on the process. So, it's important to get your 2 cents in now!

For more info, click here: http://www.farmandfoodproject.org/; http://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/. And just for kicks, here's the letter Bill Maher submitted: http://www.pcrm.org/childhoodobesity/BillMaher.pdf

What you can do:

1. Click here for info and action from the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine (nutrition focus): http://www.pcrm.org/news/legislative_issues
2. CSPI's petition (also nutrition focused): http://takeaction.cspinet.org/campaign/nutritionstandards
3. Check the "click and sign" link list to the right of this blog for more action opportunities.
4. Click here to support decreased subsidies: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/238711496
5. Call your Senator! (Info at the bottom of the blog).
   

http://foodkarmaalert.blogspot.com/

After Feb. 18, 2009 any television that works via analog signal will work no more (most TVs made since 2003 are digital ready). Broadcasting will go completely digital, so that means there will be a big jump in electronic waste (E-waste). Waste in general, as we all know, is a major environmental problem and e-waste in particular presents challenges because electronics contain toxic materials including lead, polyvinyl chloride, mercury, cadmium and brominated flame retardants. This group has been linked to brain, nerve and kidney damage, birth defects, hormone disruption and cancer. This problem is further magnified in developing countries where disposal is handled by unprotected workers who are willing to risk their health (likely unaware of the danger) to salvage the small amounts of metals they can get money from. AND the U.S. ships 50 - 80% of our ewaste overseas for recylcing! (Source of this info: Co-Op America Quarterly, Fall 2007).

The FCC is planning an education program to let Americans know about this change and how they can convert their TVs to digital (http://www.dtv.gov/); however, they are not including recycling in this plan.

What does this have to do with food? Well, these toxins have to go somewhere and that somewhere is the environment: water and soil. From there it can make it's way into the crops and into our bodies. This is especially concerning when you consider our increasing dependence on agricultural imports from countries with weak to nonexistent ag and food safety systems.

What you can do:

1. Click here - http://action.computertakeback.com/action/ - to tell EPA to stop the export of e-waste.
2. Click here - http://www.dtv.gov/ - and contact the FCC (info at bottom of webpage) and encourage them to make recycling a priority.
3. Click here for recylcing info: http://www.mygreenelectronics.org/; http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling/donate.htm
4. Learn more about green electronics: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/green-electronics-guide-ewaste250806