Yesterday, the Food and Toxicological Journal in New York published the findings of the first-ever, long-term, toxicity study of a feeding trial that examined the effects of consuming food that has been routinely sprayed with a commonly used weedkiller and altered by genetic engineering, a technology introduced into our food supply in the last 15 years.

And it has sparked controversy.

On one side of the debate, researchers are urging precaution,  using emotional images of rats bloated with tumors, and data suggesting increased mortality, and on the other side is the industry that stands to lose not only on the corn fields but also in the courtroom and boardroom should their products be proven to cause harm.

But perhaps the most alarming thing about yesterday's announcement is the fact that while the US population has been consuming these products for the last fifteen years, without having been told or informed through mandatory labeling, this is the first long-term study that examines the toxicological impact of what eating crops, hardwired for chemicals, might do to us.

Stop and think about that.  For the first time, a long-term toxicity trial has been conducted on food we've been eating for 15 years.

So what did it find?

The study examined the long-term health impacts of consuming two products in particular related to this new technology, a genetically modified corn and the world's most popular weedkiller, a product used extensively in farming and agriculture.

 With images that are sure to draw an emotional response, the study revealed that consumption of these two products can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death.

Now correlation is not causation, but we are quickly learning from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics to the President's Cancer Panel, that environmental factors are increasingly being linked to diseases like cancer.

And with rates of cancer escalating among Americans (according to the American Cancer Society 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes), as well as health care costs related to the disease and the economic burden it places on our country, productivity and growth, the controversial study quickly made headlines.

France's government on Wednesday asked the National Agency for Health Safety (ANSES) to investigate the finding after the corn was linked to cancer in order "to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health," they said in a joint statement.

The relationship between our government and the corn industry has been long-standing, as evidenced in the image above.  And currently, the USDA is part owner on a major patent technology.  With the jury still out on this issue and others, like pink slime, drug use in the animals we eat and others, only time will tell if conflicts of interests will present an issue and if our government will do the same.

So what's an eater to do?

The product in question is a new type of corn, called NK603, patented at the United States Patent and Trademark Office and made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.  The corn has been engineered to withstand Monsanto's weedkiller Roundup.

Genetically engineered seeds are a profitable product for the company, not only because these new seeds have been patented for their novel technologies, enabling the company to charge licensing fees, royalty fees and trait fees to the farmers that now use them, but also because they enable an increased adoption of other chemicals and products in the companies portfolio, like RoundUp Weedkiller, building out both revenue streams while also offering hedges to any potential slumps in sales that might occur.  Additionally, protected under patent law for their intellectual property, these patents prohibit research on the new patented seed variety, except if the farmer or researcher is willing to pay the patent holder.

It's a brilliant business model, and this generation of farmers is the first to experience this shift in the business model, where they now have to license the use of this new technology, paying royalty, trait and licensing fees much like an end-user has to license the use of Microsoft's software.

And while these genetically engineered crops are widely grown in the United States, they have been banned or are labeled in 50 countries around the world due to health and environmental concerns and the fact that until now, no long-term studies have been conducted.

And while the study showed premature deaths, tumor growth and organ damage, with sickness concentrated especially among females, according to Reuters, Monsanto spokesman said that "more than 300 peer-reviewed studies" had found that (this) food was safe.

In other words, it's a bit of a he said/she said debate.

So again, what's an eater to do?

This corn cannot be grown in Europe, so you could move there.  But since that's not an option for most of us, as the debate continues, with the industry funding studies on one side saying one thing, while independent scientists say another, we can take a cue from Harvard University, who conducted research showing the impact that funding ties can make on the outcome of scientific studies, particularly those around food and nutrition.  The study from 2007 is titled "Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles".  Its conclusion?

"Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health."

The bottom line is that the bottom line matters when it comes to science.  So we can expect to see more controversy around food studies and an increasing scrutiny of funding ties between researchers, institutions, universities and corporations, especially in light of the growing number of food safety concerns and recalls.

So ask questions. Become part of the conversation.  Start a book club, a movie night.  Nothing could be more important than the health of our families.  And if our food is making us sick, we need to know about it.  Because while there will always be controversy and criticism around the methodologies used in studies, there is in this study, specifically the pictures of rats with large tumors", reported the BBC, there will always be a He said/She said debate when profits are at stake.

But we are all stakeholders in our food supply and the health of our country.  And we are increasingly cancer-ridden, with our corporations, our families and our economy weighed down by the burden of disease.  Just this week it was announced that cancer has overtaken heart disease as the No. 1 killer among Hispanics in the U.S.

We have a right to independent, long-term studies that examine what the impact of these novel technologies and manufactured chemicals might have on the health of our loved ones, our pregnancies and our children, we have the right to know how our food is produced, and like 50 countries around the world, we have the right to labels on these genetically engineered ingredients, so that as mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, as Americans, we can make an informed choice when it comes to feeding our loved ones.

This is not about an eaters right to choose organic food, which by law does not allow either of these ingredients to be used in the process, nor is this is about those with capital being able to choose to shop in a certain zip code while those without capital can not.  This is a fundamental right to human health that should be afforded to all Americans : the right to know about the ingredients that are in our food supply and if they cause harm.

And while this study is not perfect, in the face of not a single long-term human health study until now, this is the only long-term study we've got. The only one.  And we need more.

Some argue, if this study is true,"why aren't NorthAmericans dropping like flies?!".  41% of us are expected to get cancer.  Cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children.  Correlation is not causation, but in light of these statistics, not knowing what is in our food supply and the long-term harm that these ingredients might cause is no longer an option.  Because while our children may only represent 30% of the population, they are 100% of our future.

To ask the FDA to label these genetically engineered foods, placing the same value on the lives of Americans that has been placed on the lives of citizens in almost 50 other countries around the world, please join www.justlabelit.org

This weekend captured almost every emotion.  Between attending a friend’s wedding and learning the heartbreaking details after another friend’s son who was injured in an accident, the emotional gamut was run like a roller coaster.  And once again, I realized how short life is and how important it is to say what you need to say. 

And as I tried to process it, sitting on the sidelines of soccer fields watching children’s games, I realized that I wasn’t the only one experiencing this wide range of emotions.  

And I listened, as parents told stories, expressed concern and shared their heartaches and hopes.  We came together, in honest and candid dialogue, discussing our children's future, and I suddenly found myself wishing that our political candidates – all of them – could hear what was being said.

Parents spoke of their experiences in the military and their experiences in doctors’ offices.  They spoke of the health conditions that they are managing in their children and in their parents. They spoke of job uncertainty, liabilities and a growing unease with systems that need updating - the financial system, the health care system, the food system. 

They spoke with the conviction of families that were raised as lifelong Democrats and lifelong Republicans and those that had danced between the two, and they spoke with the conviction of Americans.

They spoke from the heart with profound concern that answers are not being offered and divisions are being deeply entrenched.  Because the truth is that the health of our families, our financial system and our food systems are suffering. Our healthcare system is a bloated mess and our financial system is the same.  We have inherited systems that have failed to capture externalized costs - the cost to our health, the environment or our financial future - knowing that not only is cancer a tumor growing on our economy, but so is our debt burden.  

And as a generation, as parents on the sidelines of sports' fields, we carry the weight of those systems, as taxpayers, as citizens, as mothers, as daughters, as sons and as fathers, knowing that we love our country deeply, saddened that it is burdened by these conditions and not in its best shape.

And yet as we listened to each other, asking one to elaborate on her position, another to share his point of view, we learned something new.  But perhaps the greatest lesson on the sidelines of the soccer field was that it was going to take all of us, sharing our collective wisdom and expertise, working together, respectful of the differences and mindful of the future, to create the world we want for our children.

The solution does not lie in political hands.  It is in our own, very capable ones. The same hands that balance a check book, volunteer at school, care for a loved one, tend to aging parents are the hands that can write letters, share thoughts on Facebook or Twitter, start a blog, begin a dialogue.

Because the beauty of our country is in the harmony of our differences, and our greatest blessing is our infinite capacity to love. And it is in those love-fueled moments, in which we come together as people with a profound concern for the health of our country, that we will create the future we want to see for our children. 

Diet is like religion, it is not one-size-fits-all.  And as controversies swirl over how to handle the obesity epidemic, as individuals, we are quickly learning that there are a lot of little things that we can do that will make a big change in the health of families.  And that as we take these baby steps, these changes add up.

And with recent reports suggesting that even a 64 calorie reduction a day could go a long way to reducing the escalating rates of obesity, maybe it's as easy to do as ditching a can of soda.  If you need some inspiration, try the infographic below.

The lines were short and the faces were long at the airport yesterday as I flew to Los Angeles. 

"Has it been like this all day?" I asked the security agent. 

"Pretty much", she replied, with a look that said far more. 

It was hard to see and even harder to remember.  The terror, the babies I held, the family we couldn't track down.  

We all have those memories.  September 11th is forever marked in our hearts.  We remember where we were, who we were with and what we became that day: united in our love for our country.

And now 11 years later, we live In an uncertain world.  But certain truths remain: the love we have for our friends, for our families and for our country. 

And at any given moment in time, we can sacrifice what we are for what we can become.  Love and liberty can lead the way. 

Every school day, 46 children are diagnosed with cancer.  That's enough children to empty two classrooms.

It didn't used to be this way.  Ask any grandmother.  The landscape of children's health has changed.  

But we are also learning just how powerful love can be.  And that we have a choice: we can let these conditions bring us to our knees or they can bring us to our feet.  

The work being done on behalf of the health of children is love-fueled, especially the work being done by parents. And this past week, people came together to Stand Up 2 Cancer, as seen in this new song by Taylor Swift, based on the words of a mom who lost her 4 year old son, Ronan, to the disease.  

46 children are diagnosed with cancer every day.  Children that we love to the moon and back.  The classrooms can not continue to empty.

Learn what you can do to help create change and to protect the health of the people you love in the links below. 

To learn how to protect the health of your loved ones, please visit:

• Pure Prevention
  
• Healthy Child Healthy World
  
• President's Cancer Panel: Reducing Risk
  
• American Academy of Pediatrics
• Stand Up 2 Cancer
  
  

Yesterday's report out of Stanford that organic foods may not be much healthier or more nutritious than their conventional counterparts has caused quite a stir.

A deeper investigation into the study reveals a few things that were not highlighted in the coverage.

While the scientists analyzed vitamins and minerals, suggesting little variation between foods produced organically and those produced conventionally using a chemically-intensive agricultural system, food isn't simply a delivery device for vitamins and minerals alone.

We are quickly learning in this industrialized food era that our food can be full of a lot of other things.  It has become a delivery device for artificial colors, additives, preservatives, added growth hormomes, antibiotics, pesticides, insecticides and so much more.

The term "organic" actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed and legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.

The details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:

• antibiotics
• artificial growth hormones
• high fructose corn syrup
• artificial dyes (made from coal tar and petrochemicals)
• artificial sweeteners derived from chemicals
• synthetically created chemical pesticide and fertilizers
• genetically engineered proteins and ingredients
• sewage sludge
• irradiation

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, these added ingredients are actually what differentiate organic foods from their conventional counterparts.  Yet in the coverage of the Stanford study, comparing organic food to conventional, little attention or analysis was given to these additives or their collective impacts on human health.  There is little discussion of the insecticidal toxins produced by a genetically engineered corn plant, or measure of the added growth hormones used in conventional dairy, or measure of the fact that 80% of the antibiotics used today are used on the chicken, pork, beef and animals that we eat.  There is also little discussion of what the cumulative impacts of these ingredients, not allowed in organic food production, are having on the health of our families, our children and our country.

Food is not just a delivery device for vitamins and minerals, as measured in the study, but it is also used as a delivery device for these substances that drive profitability for the food industry.  To fail to measure these added ingredients or to disclose the harm they might cause, while suggesting that there is essentially no difference, is incomplete at best.  Some might even go so far as to suggest that it is irresponsible in light of the fact that we are seeing such a dramatic increase in diet-related disease.

Additionally, anyone who knowingly sells or mislabels as organic a product that was not produced and handled in accordance with the regulations can be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.  In other words, if an organic producer were to add any one of the ingredients listed above, they would be fined.

WHY ORGANICS COST MORE

Admittedly, the high price of organic food can irritate anyone.  But the scrutiny that these foods undergo is enormous and expensive, driving prices at the cash register and for those producing them on the farm.  Why the costs?  Because the cost structure on our food supply offers taxpayer-funded resources called subsidies to the farmers using genetically engineered seeds and saturating crops in insecticides and weed killers, while charging the organic farmers fees to prove that their crops are safe.

That's like getting fined to wear your seat belt.

So while conventional food production allows for the addition of cheap, synthetic and often controversial ingredients that have been disallowed, banned or never permitted for use in developed countries around the world, organic food carries the burden of having to prove that its products are safe - products produced without the use of added non-food ingredients that other countries have found controversial or removed from their food supply.

In other words, it's an un-level playing field right now.  And if we were all sitting down as a national family at our national dinner table, I don't think that any of us would want to be using our resources this way.  Wouldn't we rather have the organic food be the one that we fund, making it cheaper, more affordable and more accessible to all Americans?

Or if given the choice, would we rather eat food hopped up on growth hormones, antibiotics and chemical pesticides?  You can answer that.

And while correlation is not causation, in light of the growing rates of cancer, diabetes and other conditions affecting our families, the answer would appear to be "eat less chemicals."

But right now, the majority of the population does not have that choice.  Food, clean from antibiotics, added growth hormones and excessive pesticide residue, should be a basic human right, afforded to all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status.

WHERE TO START?

But since the high price of organic produce and a flawed food system that continues to charge organic farmers more to prove that their products, produced without ingredients that mounting scientific evidence has shown to cause harm, is still an insurmountable hurdle to the majority of the population, especially the growing number of unemployed, where can an American who wants to avoid these ingredients start?

Start with baby steps.  None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something.  And thankfully, foods without these controversial additives and ingredients are increasingly sold in grocery stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, Kroger and Safeway which represent the largest single distribution channel, accounting for 38 percent of organic food sales in 2006. Look for milk labeled "RbGH-free" or look for products without high fructose corn syrup or artificial colors. A growing number of companies from Kraft to Nestle are producing them, because their employees have kids battling conditions like asthma, allergies, diabetes and cancer, too.

So maybe you rolled your eyes at this whole thing a few years ago, dismissing it as an expensive food fad.  The Stanford study goes a long way towards reinforcing that.  But read between the lines.  You are smarter than you realize and braver than you think.  And the love that you have for your family and your country can propel you to do things you could never imagine.  So navigate the grocery store a bit differently, get involved with a food kitchen, a community garden, a child's school.  And reach out to your legislators.  They have families, too.

Because as the science continues to mount, from the Presidents Cancer Panel to the American Academy of Pediatrics, we are learning just how much the food we eat- and the artificial ingredients being added to it - can affect the health of our loved ones.

Additional Resources:

• Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States
• Analysis of Pesticide Residue Testing Data from the USDA
• Pesticide Exposure in Children and ADHD: American Academy of Pediatrics
• rBGH in Milk: Environmental and Occupational Health
• Antibiotics and Emerging Consequences for Human and Animal Health
• Fruit and Soil Quality of Organic and Conventional Agroecosystems