A just-released study shows that animals found in the US food supply are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified corn and soy.

It’s enough to make anyone paying attention to the genetically modified food debate sit up and take notice.

And it did, but it also brought another issue to light: the growing influence that funding ties are having over scientific studies and the journals they are published in. 

The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in pigs fed genetically modified foods was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the genetically modified food diet.  These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs.  While 22% of male pigs and 42% of female pigs on the genetically modified food diet had this condition, when these pigs were compared to pigs on the control diet, it was found that male pigs were actually more strongly affected.  While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. 

According to the researchers, these findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant. The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems.

Yes, the Journal of Organic Systems.  A look at the journal’s sponsors shows that the Organic Federation of Australia sponsors the journal.

Why is this important? Journals and their editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing.  In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck.

And in early 2013 the scientific journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. According to Independent Science News, Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, the company whose products were recently challenged in a scientific study published in this journal, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

So with eyes wide open to how these journals are being used, what did the pig study in the Organic journal find? The feeding study lasted more than five months and was conducted in the US.  168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn (2), or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet.  The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions.  They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan.  They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” - they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group. The research was undertaken because farmers have for some years been reporting reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn (3). 

Farmers have seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination.  There is also evidence of a higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die. The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn. The study seemed significant for four reasons:

1. Results were found in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory
2. Pigs were used and pigs end up in our food supply.
3. Pigs have a similar digestive system to people
4. The animals were fed a mixture of crops that contained three genetically modified genes and genetically modified proteins, relatively new to the food supply.

No food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

In other words, we are eating these foods in combination without an understanding of what their synergistic toxicity might be.

The study also aimed to address the concern of farmers who had found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding genetically modified food crops to their animals.

But if these foods were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s, why are we only just now conducting the studies?  Shouldn’t they have been conducted before these products came to market? And what is the concern?

According to Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist at the Consumers Union,  in testimony on H1936, an Act relative to Genetically Engineered Food; H2037, an Act to establish guidelines for genetically engineered food; and H2093, an Act relative to the labeling of food before the Joint Committee on Public Health in Boston, MA, said, “There is global agreement that genetic engineering is different than conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be completed for all GE foods prior to marketing.  The human safety problems that may arise include introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins, and changes in nutrition.  There may also be unintended effects.”

So how did the US, the FDA, allow these ingredients into our food supply while the rest of the world exercised such precaution?  And while correlation is not causation, does it explain the 400% increase we have seen in the number of children with allergies?

Without labels on these foods, there is no way to know.

The United States, unlike all other developed countries, does not require safety testing for genetically modified plants now found in our food supply (although it does require an assessment for genetically modified animals).  The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) original policy on genetically engineered (or GM, for genetically modified) plants, developed more than twenty years ago,[1] says that companies may go through a “voluntary safety consultation.”  But, in the end, FDA says it is up to the companies to determine safety of any GE food.  To date, there have been some 97 “voluntary safety consultations.”

But that was twenty years ago.  So what has happened lately?

It turns out that just last June, the American Medical Association’s House on Delegates voted to change its policy on “bioengineered” foods to one that states:  “Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens.”[2]

According to Hansen’s testimony, one big problem with safety assessments of genetically modified plants now found in our food supply is that there have been virtually no long-term animal feeding studies, with most feeding studies being of 90 days or shorter.  A carefully designed meta-analysis of 19 published studies involving mammals fed this new, genetically modified corn or soy found damage in the kidney, liver and bone marrow, which could be potential indicators for the onset of chronic diseases.[3]  However, no animal tests are obligatory for any of the genetically modified plants now found in our food supply cultivated on a large scale in the US.

Do other countries do it this way?  Or are we the only ones who take the approach: Shoot first, ask questions later?

It looks like we are one of the only developed countries to do it this way, as over 60 countries around the world either banned or labeled these ingredients in the food supply so that consumers can make an informed choice.

Both the French Food Safety Agency (ANSES) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that such long-term safety assessment should be done on genetically modified foods.

So where are those studies? A long-term (two year) feeding study published in October, 2012 found that females rats fed the genetically modified corn died 2-3 times more quickly, and developed mammary tumors more often than controls who ate non-GE corn, while male rats fed the GE corn have liver and kidney problems at higher rate than controls, and more large tumors than rats fed non-GE corn.[4]

The study was terrible PR for the chemical and biotech industries whose shareholders rely on these products to drive profitability and was quickly criticized by the scientific community for the way in which the study was conducted. The design of the study had flaws, but perhaps it’s most significant contribution to this dialogue was that it raised the awareness of how few long-term independent studies have been conducted.

The result? It had countries around the world calling for more independent studies and science.

With the news of the US pig study, now we have another one.

The sample size was not small.  This one involved US pigs fed a combination of genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, fed to animals in our food supply and used in our processed foods, has found evidence of adverse health effects.  This study involved a large sample size (168 pigs) of pigs raised in a commercial US piggery, and fed commercially available soy and corn for 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of commercial pig from weaning to slaughter) was designed “to compare the effects of eating either a mixed genetically modified soy and genetically modified corn diet, or an equivalent diet with non- genetically modified ingredients.”[5]  The study found that the uteri of genetically modified food-fed pigs was significantly larger (weighed 25% more) than those non- genetically modified food-fed pigs.  In addition, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for genetically modified food -fed pigs compared to non- genetically modified food -fed pigs (32% vs 12%, respectively).

It hit the males harder. For male pigs, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was four times higher for genetically modified food -fed males to non- genetically modified food fed males, and for females, the rate was more than 2-fold higher.  As the authors conclude “The results indicate that it would be prudent for genetically modified crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked genetically modified crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”[6]

You would think that this had already happened before such widespread introduction into the US food supply without so much as a label. But it hasn’t, so scientists here in the US, as well as farmers, join scientists around the world calling for more independent, long-term studies.

And we need them, because a further look into this study by Mark Lynas, a climate change author who recently became an advocate for these products suggests that “if you look at the data they present (and the data presentation is at least a step better than Seralini) there are obvious problems. Clearly all the animals were in very poor health – weaner mortality is reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”, a vague statement intended to justify what seem to have been inadequate husbandry standards.

This picture is even more stark in the data presented in Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so.

He highlights that close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter, calling the study “propaganda dressed up as science.”

The problem is that this is increasingly the case on both sides of the GMO aisle, with conflicts of interests on both sides of the issue.

There is virtually no independent safety testing of these crops in the US due to intellectual property right problems.  When farmers buy genetically modified seed in the US (seeds that have been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of the chemicals sold by the company engineering them), they invariably must sign a product stewardship agreement which forbids them from giving such seeds to researchers.[7]  Since researchers must get permission from the biotech companies before they can do research, the result is a scarcity of independent research.  Scientists have even been threatened with legal action if they revealed information obtained via freedom-of-information.[8]

In early 2009 26 public sector scientists in the US took the unprecedented step of writing to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”[9]  As a result, the editors of Scientific American published a perspective stating that “we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements.”  We concur and believe that only truly independent safety tests will give us an answer about the safety of genetically modified foods.  In the meantime, it’s crucial that genetically modified foods be labeled, so that if people experience negative effects, they and their doctors can identify them.

Correlation is not causation, but with the skyrocketing rates of food allergies now seen in the US population, studies showing an increased risk of developing allergies after moving to the United States and the fact that few independent, long-term studies have been conducted due to the intellectual property protections enjoyed by these companies, it’s not only consumers who have a basic right to know what they are eating but parents who also have a basic right to know what is in the foods they are feeding their children.

To learn how to get involved with the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States, please visit Just Label It.  

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.  She is a former financial analyst and author.

"Now you may not know exactly what Monsanto is, but you probably eat what they produce...every day."

And with that statement, CNN's Jake Tapper let Americans know that something had been slipped into our food.

In a riveting seven minute segment,  the report teaches the country about a company that has quietly inserted its products into what we eat without our knowing it.

The company that makes these ingredients, a chemical company called Monsanto, may "have previously been best known as being one of the producers of the contributors to the chemical contiributing to Agent Orange...believed to have caused disastrous health effects for those who came in contact with it,"  reports CNN.

But as the segment goes on to say, "now Monsanto not only delivers pesticides designed to deliver a death blow to living things...it also produces seeds designed to resist those lethal chemicals.  And now the company is under fire for these seeds that have been genetically modified and their legislative muscle....as they have defeated efforts to allow labeling of these genetically modified products."

The company claims that their products are safe and needed to feed the world, but independent science and data out of the United Nations which has a global initiative addressing food waste called "Save Food" and our own USDA suggest otherwise.  The USDA recently called for further research into these genetically modified food crops, and both organizations are drawing attention to the issue of food waste.

According to the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization, “Roughly one third of the food produced in the world for human consumption every year – approximately 1.3 billion tonnes – gets lost or wasted globally” and “Every year, consumers in rich countries waste almost as much food (222 million tonnes) as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa (230 million tonnes).”

Feed the world with a new product by a chemical company or focus on food waste?  Obviously, a chemical company has the financial obligation to its shareholders to promote its products as the solution.  Reducing food waste doesn't make any money for a company that has genetically engineered foods to withstand increasing doses of their chemicals.  

And while it doesn't have to be an "either" "or" proposition, addressing the global challenge of feeding the world does require transparency.

So as this chemical company introduced their new products and this new technology into our food supply, a question asked on CNN is one that a growing number of Americans are asking, too: How could you know if you are eating genetically modified foods and feeding them to your family?

As CNN's Tapper states, "Well, you can't, and that's the issue."

These products and foods derived from them are labeled in over 60 countries around the world, but our very own FDA, relying on industry funded research, states that there is no need for labeling these ingredients because they are substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, the soy, corn and canola that existed for thousands of years that are not patented by these large chemical companies.

But the patents on these new ingredients in our food supply, many filed for the first time in the mid 1990s, suggest that there is a substantial difference in these products, substantial enough to make a chemical company a $58 billion dollar corporation with field offices in over 60 countries around the world.

On top of that, there is mounting scientific concern over the health effects of consuming these products and chemicals, and a growing number of countries are choosing to opt out of them in their food supplies. The chemical companies will claim "no evidence of harm." Without labels, there is no evidence, no way to document the effects of these ingredients on our health, and no accountability, traceability or liability.

So what's an American to do?  It's worth seven minutes to watch this CNN clip and share it with those that you love.

Because while correlation is not causation, knowledge is power, and in order to address the escalating health care costs in our country and the runaway rates of allergies, asthma, cancer and other diseases in our families, we need to know what we are eating.  And the only way that farmers can get an accurate read on consumer demand for their products is if they have a complete data set.  

Without labels, there is no way for us to know that we are eating these products and no way for farmers to register consumer sentiment and demand.

The labeling of these ingredients in the food supply is a civil right that has been granted to citizens around the world and the farmers that feed them, and to protect the health of our country, our agricultural system and our economy, it is a freedom that Americans deserve, too.

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.  She is a former financial analyst and author.

The landscape of food has changed.  

Not only is it available 24/7 and  marketed to us using mobile apps and Internet games, but it is also full of lots of ingredients that just didn't exist when we were kids.   So while our food may look the same, it now contains  artificial, engineered and genetically altered ingredients that are so new that patents have been filed on them in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Not something any busy eater wants to hear.  Especially a busy parent who is doing his or her best to simply get the kids to eat.

But we are quickly learning that the ingredients in our foods - the good ones that include vitamins and minerals and the ones that have the potential to cause harm - have a lot to do with the health of our families.

And if you are just getting started on trying to eat a little cleaner or reduce your families exposure to artificial ingredients, you may be hearing about something called "genetically engineered foods."  If you haven't heard about them, you're not alone.  While countries around the world labeled these ingredients when they were introduced in the 1990s, we didn't here.

So a lot has changed in our food in the last decade, and given the juggling act that most of us perform on a daily basis, coupled with the fact that these new ingredients were never labeled, it's no surprise that we are only just beginning to have this dialogue around the labeling of these ingredients here in the United States.  States like California, North Carolina and other have taken a lead on it.  But the dialogue is now being held at the national level, with millions of citizens calling on the FDA to do the same.  So we put together a short Q&A, working  with researchers who have not accepted funding from or developed patents for the corporations developing these new products, to pull together this information for you.

FACT SHEET: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS

Did you know that your drink might contain an ingredient that is not used in beverages in 100 countries around the world?

Brominated vegetable oil (also known as “BVO”) is found in sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas.  It is a chemical that keeps two liquids mixed together.  It acts as a binding agent, also known as an emulsifier, and it prevents the flavoring and other ingredients found in our drinks from separating and floating to the surface.

It makes sense , on one level, as we don’t want our drinks to look like a separated salad dressing with ingredients floating to the top!  But this appearance might come with a hidden side effect.  According to SHAPE magazine and nutritionist Mira Calton and her husband Jayson Calton, Ph.D., “Because it competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, elevated levels of the stuff may lead to thyroid issues, such as hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer,” Calton says. As if that wasn’t scary enough, BVO's main ingredient, bromine, is a chemical that is considered toxic. It's been linked to all kind of health concerns, including organ system damage, birth defects, schizophrenia, and hearing loss, which explains why it's been removed or banned from food and drinks in more than 100 countries.

These health concerns and the fact that so many countries have removed BVO from their beverages was so concerning to one 15 year old that she launched an online petition that landed her in the New York Times in which she called for the removal of this ingredient from American beverages, as it’s been removed from products around the world.

Want to opt out of brominated vegetable oil here in the United States? Skip the sports drinks and choose water.  And if you’re filling up your cup at the soda fountain, instead of the lemon-lime and citrus flavored drinks, consider drinking something else.

Remember, while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something.  Focus on progress not perfection, and do what you can, where you are with what you have, remembering not to make “the perfect” the enemy of “the good.”

 Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth or on Facebook.

According to Reuters News, a report released out of MIT suggests that heavy use of the world's most popular herbicide, Roundup, could be linked to a range of health problems and diseases, including Parkinson's, infertility and cancers.

The peer-reviewed report, published last week, said evidence indicates that residues of "glyphosate," the chief ingredient in Roundup weed killer, which is sprayed over millions of acres of crops, has been found in food.

Many Americans are more  familiar with RoundUp than we realize. It is a weed killer, used on lawns and gardens, with precautionary measures taken by parents to keep it locked in cabinets and out of the reach of children.  What most Americans don’t realize is that this chemical is routinely used on the foods we eat, most notably corn and soy.

It is now so widely used in modern agriculture that a recent article about glyphosate, the chief ingredient found in RoundUp, from the global news organization, Reuters, highlighted that these chemicals are part of an enormous market, with world annual sales totaling $14 billion, with more than $5 billion of that spent in the US alone.

But what are they doing to us?  Especially given their pervasive use on the foods we eat?

Well, MIT aimed to find out.

According to the report, authored by Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the research suggests that the RoundUp residue now found on our food enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease. "Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body," the study says.

We "have hit upon something very important that needs to be taken seriously and further investigated," Seneff said.

MIT is not alone in their concern. In the mid 1990s, using a new technology, our soy was genetically engineered with new organisms to make it able to withstand increasing doses of weed killer, chemicals and glyphosate.  The  business model makes perfect sense.  It enhances profitability of the chemical companies by enabling the increased sale of their chemical treatments and weed killers.

But according to the work of Professor Miguel A. Altieri of the University of California, Berkeley who had looked into unforeseen risks that might be associated with genetically engineered crops and these chemicals being sprayed on them:

“Exactly how much glyphosate is present in the seeds of corn or soybeans (genetically engineered to withstand this chemical) is not known, as grain products are not included in conventional market surveys for pesticide residues.  The fact that this and other herbicides are known to accumulate in fruits…raises questions about food safety, especially now that million pounds of this herbicide, ($5 billion worth) are used annually in the United States alone. Even in the absence of immediate (acute) effects, it might take 40 years for a potential carcinogen to act in enough people for it to be detected as a cause.  Moreover, research has shown that glyphosate seems to act in a similar fashion to antibiotics by altering soil biology rendering bean plants more vulnerable to disease”. In other words, it might take a generation for these effects to show up.  In light of the escalating rates of infertility, pediatric cancer and inflammatory bowel diseases, it begs the question: since the introduction of this new technology in the 1990s, is that happening now?

So why are we using a chemical that is too dangerous to store under our kitchen sinks in the reach of children on the foods we feed our families?

Monsanto is the developer of both Roundup weed killer (an “herbicide”) and a suite of crops that are genetically altered to withstand being sprayed with it.  These genetically engineered crops, introduced into our food in the 1990s and 2000s, have the unique ability to withstand increasing doses of the weed killer and are known as “RoundUp Ready”.  In other words, it helps them sell more chemicals.

Since the introduction of these genetically engineered crops, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data reveals that between 2001- and 2007, as much as 185 million pounds of glyphosate was used by U.S. farmers, double the amount used six years ago. So in the past, where we may have been getting a sprinkling of this chemical on our food crops prior to the introduction of RoundUp Ready crops, with the recent introduction of genetically engineered foods, designed to withstand this signature product, the doses are at unprecedented levels.

So what is this product doing to us?

Glyphosate, found in RoundUp, is the world's most popular herbicide and is designed to kill pests and insects, anything but the genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" plants, such as genetically engineered corn, soy, beet, cottonseed and canola. These genetically engineered crops , including genetically engineered corn, genetically engineered soybeans, genetically engineered canola and genetically engineered sugarbeets, are planted on millions of acres in the United States annually and widely and generously in the US food supply, particularly processed foods, without labels.

When these crops were first introduced in the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was conjectured that farmers would like them because they could spray Roundup weed killer directly on the crops to kill weeds in the fields without harming the crops.  And they did.  But about three planting cycles in, it appears that Mother Nature has Monsanto figured out and it is now reported that over half of the farmers using these products are experiencing a resistance to the chemical company’s signature product and suffering from what are known as “superweeds” in their fields.

It was not only the unknown impact of environmental and crop disruption that caused countries around the world to exercise precaution around the use of these chemicals, it was also the uncertainty of the long-term impact that these crops and the chemical products applied to them would have on both the environment, soil, a developing fetus or human health that resulted in their use being banned in 27 countries around the world and labeled in 64 more.

In light of the study out of MIT, this precautionary measure seems well-founded, as with the approval of every new RoundUp Ready crop, there is a 2-5 times increase in the amount of glyphosate that is applied. And while that may help drive profitability for the chemical industry, there are social costs: lost yields in food production and any health care costs that may be associated with the harm that these chemicals might cause.

The authors of the MIT report are concerned that RoundUp, for which these genetically engineered crops are named, and the chemical used in it, glyphosate, are contributing to diseases as far-ranging as inflammatory bowel disease, cancer, infertility, cystic fibrosis, cancer, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, going so far as to suggest that it "...may be the most biologically disruptive chemical in our environment." According to Green Med:

“The researchers identified the inhibition and/or disruption of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes as a hitherto overlooked mechanism of toxicity associated with glyphosate exposure in mammals. CYP enzymes are essential for detoxifying xenobiotic chemicals from the body. Glyphosate therefore enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins.  The researchers also showed how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria (e.g. tryptophan), as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport, a critical biological system for cellular detoxification (e.g. transulfuration pathway which detoxifies metals).”

In working with plant biologists, I have learned that glyphosate kills weeds by turning off key enzymes that produce defense mechanisms for plants.  It essentially targets and destroys their immune systems by chelating, stripping, micronutrients like magnesium, copper and zinc from the plant.  As a result, there are fewer of these key micronutrients in the plants and in our food supply. This effect, according to the researchers, can contribute to causing or worsening "...most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer's disease."

This isn’t the first time we’ve heard this.  It picks up on a previous Reuter’s article that was titled “Cancer Cause or Crop Aid?”

In Canada, the Canadian tolerable levels for glyphosate are 58 times lower that those in the US and that European tolerance levels are even lower as a precautionary measure to protect vulnerable subsets of the population, like pregnant women and children.  Plant biologists share that the levels of glyphosate now found in the US food supply have been clinically shown to be toxic, citing its effects on human placental, kidney, liver and testicular cells.

So what will it take to address this in the United States?  The EPA has promised to look into it in 2015.  But that’s two years of babies being born and two more years of escalating pediatric cancer rates in the US.  

We already spend more on health care costs and disease management than any other country on the planet, according the the Office of Economic Co-operation and Development.

Unlike previous researchers, this is not a report from an anti-GMO activist, nor is it a report from the organic industry, this is a scientific research paper from one of our nation’s leading academic institutions led by a woman who is courageously highlighting that the potential toxicity of one of the world’s most widely used chemicals on our food supply is far greater than was previously considered.

Scientists and researchers who have spoken out on the dangers of these products are often attacked.  This situation is no different, as Monsanto’s website in a "Featured Article: goes so far as to call MIT’s research “Another Bogus ‘Study.’”

We still do not label genetically engineered foods in the United States, foods that have literally been given this product's name and are hardwired to withstand increasing doses of it, foods that were introduced as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s into our food supply. If the jury is still out on them, as evidenced by the MIT study, shouldn't we at the very least be labeling them?

In light of the escalating rates of pediatric cancers, autism and other conditions impacting our children, the American Academy of Pediatrics is recommending a new policy, too, as seen on their website which states:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that chemical management policy in the United States be revised to protect children and pregnant women and to better protect other populations.”

The reasons for this concern are not unfounded. 

The American children have earned the title of “Generation Rx.” The Centers for Disease Control now reports that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15.  And oncologists and leading experts in the field of cancer are calling for new treatment models, worried that the increasing costs of cancer is going to put an unprecedented strain on our health care system.

So what is a parent to do?

According to Investor Place, an investment research site that tracks the stock price of Monsanto and the impact that news like this would have on its share price, “a spokesman for Monsanto says that glyphosate is a proven safe ingredient and is less damaging than other widely used chemicals.”

It must be how our grandmothers felt when told that cigarettes didn't cause cancer either.

While this type of corporate marketing and positioning may be in the best interest of shareholders, industry funded research often merits further independent investigation.

The question of labeling genetically engineered foods is not just an academic debate, it is increasingly  an ethical one.  And while the industry will claim that this is a concern afforded to the wealthy, that these crops are needed to feed the world, mounting scientific evidence is proving that with no long term human health data, other than what we are witnessing ourselves in the health of the American children, labels represent a precautionary measure, afforded to parents in 64 countries around the world who are able to walk into a grocery store and choose if they want to feed their children foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients.

As evidence and controversy grows, highlighting the toxicity of these products increasingly used on our food supply in the US, labels afford American eaters the same rights afforded to eaters around the world.  Cancer doesn’t care what side of the aisle we are on or what our income is, and the costs of diseases being born by our families, our corporations and our economy have the potential to destroy our competitiveness in the global marketplace.

A label and the knowledge that comes with it would go a long way to protecting the health of our country.

Learn how you can protect the health of your children and family from genetically engineered products and the chemicals upon which they are dependent to grow at www.justlabelit.org and at The Pesticide Action Network.

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.

Resource: Samsel A, Seneff S. Glyphosate's Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases. Entropy. 2013; 15(4):1416-1463.

What's yoga mat material doing in a hamburger bun?

Azodicarbonamide is a chemical used  “in the production of foamed plastics.”  It's used to make sneaker soles and gym mats. In the United States, it is also used in our food, as a food additive and flour bleaching agent.

This "ingredient" is most often found in breads, boxed noodle mixes, and packaged baked goods. So why in the world are we using it in our food?

Back in our grandmothers' days, bread would go stale within a day or two and grow mold by the end of the week.  Not fun but natural.  

So in order to address this concern for food retailers, the industry began adding this foaming agent in order to extend the shelf life of bread and preserve it.  To pump it up and plump it up in order to keep it fresh and enhance their profitability.

Around the world, most countries wait about a week for flour to whiten on its own, but the American food processors prefer to use this chemical to bleach the flour here because time is money.

But it turns out that the United States is one of the only developed countries in the world that allows something used in shoes and gym mats to also be used in sandwiches.  

You can get up to 15 years in prison and be fined nearly half a million dollars for using this chemical in Singapore.  It is banned as a food additive and in food packaging in the United Kingdom whose “Health and Safety Executive” considers it a  “respiratory sensitizer.”  Europe and Australia ban the use of this chemical, azodicarbonamide, too, because it has been linked to asthma and other allergic reactions.

But are we allergic to wheat or what is being done to it?

In the last twenty years, we have seen an epidemic increase in allergies, asthma, ADHD and autism, including a:

• 400% increase in food allergies
• 300% increase in asthma, with a 56% increase in asthma deaths

It's time to rethink food, rethink the role of the FDA in light of its shrinking budget and capacity to regulate our food system and to require that independent scientific studies be conducted, not only for the health of our children, but also for the sake of our increasingly burdened health care system and the tole that the chronic rates of diseases and their escalating costs are having on the health of our economy.

 Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.  

Eighteen years ago today, I met my husband.  He is my greatest blessing, having loved so unconditionally through changes that neither of us could have ever foreseen.  Some of those changes have been obvious, others, not so much, and I can not help but reflect on one of the early ones. 

For most of my life, I was hooked on Diet Coke.  I was in love with the brand, and as a kid, collected bottles and cans of various shapes and sizes.  The red and white were iconic.  I didn’t drink coffee or tea or even much water.  Just Diet Coke.  I loved it.

And every year for Lent, I would give it up until Easter.  It was tough.

I’d get headaches that would last a couple of weeks as I went through what felt like withdrawal.  What caused it?  I had no idea, but those first few weeks without it were always brutal, especially when I was in college and business school.  But as Lent would roll on every year, I’d find my way, only to arrive at Easter weekend, thrilled at the thought of being able to drink it again on Easter Sunday.  I had gone without for 40 days.  I was disciplined.  My grandfather had been a minister in the church.  We took Lent seriously.  So for those 40 days, year after year, I'd give up Diet Coke and dive back into it again on Easter.

Until I met my husband eighteen years ago.  And as I was getting ready to buy some for Easter weekend, he asked: “Why go back on it?”  And for whatever reason, that year, I didn't. 

I think about this every Lent, about how hard it was to go without that can of soda, to break the habit.  Diet Coke was as much a part of my everyday as anything else. in college, it was the first thing I had to drink each day. 

I never thought about what was in that can, the mix of ingredients, how it might affect me or anything else until I began researching children's foods seven years ago.

It turns out that aspartame, commonly used in diet sodas, is not used in kids' foods in other countries.  It's not banned, but our American companies just decided to reformulate and drop it as an artificial sweetener in the foods consumed by children.  I learned that three quarters of food-related illnesses reported to the FDA have been directly related to aspartame, the artificial sweetener found in diet sodas.   But that after 1992, the FDA ceased documentation of these reports. In other words, they stopped counting. 

It's not what you want to hear if you have ever been hooked on it. Aspartame is an artificial sweetener formulated with two amino acids, phenylalanine and aspartate.  It breaks down into several primary toxic and dangerous ingredients, including most notably, formaldehyde and an embalming fluid....I didn't want to know given how much I had consumed.  It was so hard to hear. 

But I couldn't unlearn it nor the fact that it is no longer used in kids' foods in the UK. 

At times I think, I wish I had known this earlier, as a teenager, a college kid, a grad student.  Then again, maybe I would have dismissed it.  I'd always thought that if something was on a grocery store shelf, it was safe, that someone had independently tested them for safety.  But that is not always the case.  While other countries don't allow certain ingredients in foods until they have been proven safe, it turns out that our standard is a bit different: we allow things on store shelves until they have been proven dangerous.  And since the FDA stopped counting the complaints from consumers in 1992, it brought any need to conduct further safety studies to a halt. 

But given the list submitted by Health and Human Services to the FDA regarding all symptoms of aspartame consumption, I can't help but reflect on what independent science might tell us today.

 

Fifteen year ago, if someone had suggested that I'd be writing this column, I'd have asked what planet they were on.

I was working as a financial analyst that covered the food industry.  My day to day consisted of meeting with management teams, taking factory and store tours and cranking out reports on companies like Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods.  I wasn't a foodie, and I couldn't cook.

My job included crunching the numbers, learning business models and evaluating the costs of production and distribution of our food supply.

Thank goodness.

Because today, that experience has served a greater purpose: the ability to look at the current state of our food system, the financial engineering of the science behind it and the economically motivated decisions that food industry executives make to meet their fiduciary duty to drive shareholder return and sheds light on how these decision are affecting the health of our families.

And it's becoming increasingly obvious that we've got a broken economic model at work in our food system.  Farmers are rewarded with taxpayer funded resources called subsidies for growing crops in a chemically-intensive, genetically and financially engineered kind of way to drive shareholder return for the chemical companies.  While on the other hand, farmers that are growing things organically, which means by law without the use of synthetic pesticides and crops genetically engineered to require increasing doses of toxic weed killer, have to pay fees to prove that their crops are safe, then fees to label those crops with the "USDA Organic" seal and then they don't receive the same crop insurance and marketing assistance programs that the other farmers do.

Add to that the fact that American companies formulate their products one way for eaters over seas, without the use of artificial colors, genetically engineered ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, and it's enough to get anyone going.  But the fact of the matter is that what we have to label as "organic food" here in the United States is more or less called "food" in other countries.  Because overseas, it's the products that contain all of the novel ingredients like, genetically engineered ones, that have to be labeled.

So what's a consumer to do?  Learn the Big 8.  These are the ingredients which, by law and according to our very own United States Department of Agriculture, are not allowed into the production of foods that are made organically:

The landscape of childhood has changed.  No longer are our children guaranteed a childhood free from diabetes, obesity or food allergies.

From the escalating rates of childhood cancers, to the increasing diagnoses for conditions like autism and ADHD, the landscape of childhood has changed, earning our children the title "Generation Rx".  They are the first generation of kids expected to have a shorter lifespan than their parents.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15.  The journal Pediatrics has reported that 15% of American girls are expected to begin puberty by the age of 7 (with the number closer to 25% for African American girls) and a growing number of American children struggle with obesity.  On top of that, the rate for having food allergies is 59% higher for obese children, with the Centers for Disease Control reporting a 265% increase in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions. 

And while not all of those hospitalizations are for our children, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that the health of our children is under siege.

When I shared this data with a journalist this morning, she was speechless, and I found myself again wondering: What have our children possibly done to deserve this?  And more importantly, what can we do to protect them?

This changing landscape of childhood is changing the face of American families and our economy.  We already spend 17 cents of every dollar on health care, managing disease.  The pharmaceutical companies can’t keep up with demand, and now there are shortages for drugs used to treat cancers and ADHD.

But more often than not, the solution is not found in the medicine cabinet, but in the kitchen. And as scientific evidence continues to mount, courageously presented by doctors like Mark Hyman, MD, in his groundbreaking book, The Blood Sugar Solution, and pediatric specialists like Dr. Joel Fuhrman and Dr. Alan Greene, about the role that diet and nutrition plays in the health of our children, parents are beginning to take notice.

And as we introduce new foods that are nutrient-dense (meaning full of vitamins and minerals) and try to reduce our loved ones' exposure to the foods that are nutrient-void (food that are increasingly loaded with artificial ingredients that have been synthetically engineered in laboratories), we are realizing that we have the power to affect remarkable change in the health of our children and families, so that together, we can stem this tide of children flowing into pediatric hospitals being built across the country.

Because while our children may only represent 30 percent of the population, they are 100 percent of our future.   And if our current spending on health care and disease management is a leading economic indicator, we need to stem this tide before it becomes a financial and economic storm, for the sake of our children, our families, our economy and our country.

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.

Did you see the Ram Truck ad about “Farmers” in yesterday’s Super Bowl?

It touched on every reason why they are so critical to the health of our country.

The ad begins:

“And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, "I need a caretaker." So God made a farmer. God said, "I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board." So God made a farmer.”

Our nation's farmers, regardless of whether they now grow organic crops or crops genetically engineered to be routinely sprayed with chemicals, have fed our country for generations.  We would not be here without them.

They learned at their grandfathers’ knees, and their legacy, four and five generations of it, continues as they pass their knowledge on to their own sons and daughters, families and grandkids.

I have met with them, in Colorado, Texas, Washington, Wyoming, Kansas and Iowa.  I have met their grandchildren, their wives, their sons, and I have seen the pride in all that they have done, for all that they have given to our country.

So when this ad highlighted the incredible dedication and devotion of our nation’s farmers, their calling and their lives, given in full service to our country, every word rang true.

It honored everything that these families have done for our country.

And yet sadly, almost as soon as it aired, controversy surfaced.

Quickly, it spread that the idea for the ad was taken from a popular You Tube video made in 2009 that used a voiceover from a Paul Harvey speech made to the Future Farmers of America Convention back in 1978.

But the words rang so true, that it is hard to blame anyone for reusing them. A powerful truth, well delivered, will resonate for years to come.

But it didn’t stop there. 

Others immediately questioned the ad, citing its lack of diversity for not showing Hispanic and black farmers, and for Dodge Ram Trucks tie-in to the Future Farmers of America, an organization whose million dollar sponsors include some of the worlds’ most powerful chemical and drug companies.

And I had to stop, to pause to digest all of it.

As I read through the website and the goal of Future Farmers of America to educate farmers, I once again felt my heart tug for these families.  The Future of Farming, it is a business model that their grandfathers never knew and would hardly recognize, in part due to the sponsors of this organization.

While their grandfathers saved seeds, today’s farmers no longer can, but rather have to now purchase seeds yearly, due to the patents on them now held by chemical corporations.  On top of that, our farmers must now pay royalty fees, trait fees and licensing fees in order to use these seeds and the technology now found inside.  Intel Inside?  It’s happening on the farm, as today’s model now resembles one of an operating system, a technology that must be licensed for use, and a suite of products that must be purchased to ensure that it works.

So as I read about Future Farmers of America, I read about their sponsors: a chemical company that has introduced this system, bundling the sale of chemical products increasingly linked to cancer, behavioral disorders and other conditions in our families and requiring licensing agreements for the use of this new technology, as well as a pharmaceutical corporation, routinely administering drugs to our farm animals, and all I could think is: Is this the future of farming in America?

Today, our families are sick. 

Mounting scientific evidence is pointing to the ingredients now found in our food supply that weren’t in the foods we ate as kids.  The Presidents Cancer Panel reports that 41% of us are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes and urges us to reduce our exposure to some of these ingredients.  All of us, farmers and families around the country, because cancer is hitting all of us, including the farms, stealing wives and the grandfathers, children and sons.

We have seen it firsthand.

And special reports out of the United Nations reveal that this chemically-intensive agricultural system is not the only future of farming and that other countries are rethinking food, rethinking farming, recognizing that this new technology and chemically-dependent farming system, does not ensure food security, but rather, exacerbates environmental issues and health conditions that are increasingly challenging all of us and the health of our country.

Maybe that’s why the ad resonates so deeply.

Maybe it is because I am named after a farmer.  Maybe it is because the first time I remember seeing my father emotional, it was after he helped in the complicated delivery of a lamb.  I do not know, but there is something in this ad and in these farm families that can touch you to the core.  And they are worth protecting in every way.

Just as we do not teach our children one subject in school, our farmers should not only be taught this chemically and pharmaceutically intensive way of farming for the future.   Science, independent science (not science produced by the industry to serve as a marketing tool), is demonstrating that it may not be in the best interest of the farms, the food supply or the health of our country.

And our farmers need solutions: loan sources that do not require they license the use of this new technology or purchase these chemicals, systems that help them restore mineral levels in soil, technology that helps them convert to a less toxic form of farming. A tool box full of different methods and technologies, not only to ensure that we have food security in our country, but also to ensure that it is delivered in a way that causes the least harm, to our farmers, our soil, our environment and our families.

The future of our food system is in the hands of these farmers, these stewards of our food supply, which begs the question:

Why aren’t we offering our farmers a way to opt out of this chemically and pharmaceutically dependent system?

We need all hands on deck…not just those belonging to the chemical and pharmaceutical corporations, because somewhere along the way we have forgotten that while we may occassionally need a doctor, a lawyer or a banker, we need a farmer every day, three times a day, to feed our families.

Here is the full text of Paul Harvey’s speech from 1978:

And on the 8th day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, "I need a caretaker." So God made a farmer.

God said, "I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, eat supper and then go to town and stay past midnight at a meeting of the school board." So God made a farmer.

"I need somebody with arms strong enough to rustle a calf and yet gentle enough to deliver his own grandchild. Somebody to call hogs, tame cantankerous machinery, come home hungry, have to wait lunch until his wife's done feeding visiting ladies and tell the ladies to be sure and come back real soon -- and mean it." So God made a farmer.

God said, "I need somebody willing to sit up all night with a newborn colt. And watch it die. Then dry his eyes and say, 'Maybe next year.' I need somebody who can shape an ax handle from a persimmon sprout, shoe a horse with a hunk of car tire, who can make harness out of haywire, feed sacks and shoe scraps. And who, planting time and harvest season, will finish his forty-hour week by Tuesday noon, then, pain'n from 'tractor back,' put in another seventy-two hours." So God made a farmer.

God had to have somebody willing to ride the ruts at double speed to get the hay in ahead of the rain clouds and yet stop in mid-field and race to help when he sees the first smoke from a neighbor's place. So God made a farmer.

God said, "I need somebody strong enough to clear trees and heave bails, yet gentle enough to tame lambs and wean pigs and tend the pink-combed pullets, who will stop his mower for an hour to splint the broken leg of a meadow lark. It had to be somebody who'd plow deep and straight and not cut corners. Somebody to seed, weed, feed, breed and rake and disc and plow and plant and tie the fleece and strain the milk and replenish the self-feeder and finish a hard week's work with a five-mile drive to church. "Somebody who'd bale a family together with the soft strong bonds of sharing, who would laugh and then sigh, and then reply, with smiling eyes, when his son says he wants to spend his life 'doing what dad does.'"

So God made a farmer.

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.