Whoever thought food was just food, obviously hadn’t followed this year’s headlines.  It is so much more.  Food is tradition, culture, family and politics.

And this year’s headlines prove that it can also be entertaining, celebrated, just plain gross and thought provoking.

From the food industry's allergic reaction to labeling genetically engineered ingredients to cows eating gummy bears, here’s a look back on some of the top food stories from 2012.

1. In one of the swiftest moves the industry has ever seen,  the country develops a national allergy to "pink slime” when ABC News launches an investigative story and an online blog catches the attention of eaters around the country.

2. Starbucks pulls insect parts, nixing “crushed-bug dye in frappes and pastries” when consumers, once again through an online petition, demand change

3. Drought slams farmers across the country, creating a “dry run from hell,” bringing a new urgency to the discussion about weird weather and rising global temperatures.

4. Due to food shortages and the rising costs of livestock feed, animals used in our food supply for meat are fed Halloween candy, with gummy worms being fed to cows instead of grains, creating “sweet times” for livestock.

5. Paula Dean announces she’s diabetic and has been for years, becoming a spokesperson for the condition’s medication, a “Pitch Hard to Swallow” says the WSJ, after selling consumers a diabetic-inducing menu.  A few months later, she is on a life-altering dietary change that proves to be the best recipe for health she has delivered.

6. Twinkies owner, Hostess Brand, files for bankruptcy, bankrolling executives’ bonuses, “too sweet for managers” reports the Chicago Tribune, as employees suffer.

7. Genetically engineered foods go from the fringe to the national stage when approximately 6 million in California vote for new food labels and over a million comments are submitted to the FDA as consumers learn that tiny, patented organisms have recently been inserted into our corn and soy so that chemical companies can saturate our food crops with their chemicals without our informed consent.

8. A soda ban is introduced in New York in an effort to curb the nation’s runaway obesity epidemic.  Met with skepticism, disdain and celebration, it reveals just how divided we are over tackling one of our country’s greatest health crises.

9. Chick Fil A, despite a company statement that said "We are a restaurant company focused on food, service and hospitality; our intent is not to engage in political or social debates” throws itself into the gay marriage debate.

10. Pizza gets political when Papa John’s CEO says he’ll raise pizza prices if “Obamacare” survives.

11. Natural gets litigious, as lawsuits are levied at Frito Lay and other food companies for trotting out this term for which the FDA has no legal definition as a marketing tool

12. A 15 year old calls out Gatorade for putting a flame retardant in their drinks here in the United States, having already pulled the controversial ingredient known as brominated vegetable oil from Gatorade products in other countries.

And now for 2013.  As consumers’ calls for transparency grow and legal issues mount, what will the food companies do in response?  In 2012, they spent $46 million dollars to keep people from knowing about the genetically engineered ingredients they’d slipped into our foods, the ones hardwired for chemicals.  But looking forward, at what point is it the fiduciary duty of executives at the big food companies to avoid these expenses and begin to respond to consumer demand?

Because if consumer sentiment is any indication, this growing desire to know what is in our food and how it is being produced, a desire fueled in part by the record number of Americans being diagnosed with cancer, diabetes, allergies, obesity and other conditions, food manufacturers might want to differentiate themselves from the chemical companies, step out of the laboratory and build out a food supply with ingredients that they don’t have to worry will make headlines in 2013.

 

 

Every year at Christmas, we turn our little kitchen into an assembly line, and we make meals for the homeless.  All four kids are put to task, some making sandwiches, others decorating bags.  We clear our day for it, because once the assembling is done, we load the bags into the car and hit the streets to hand them out.

Quite honestly, what we give is nothing compared to what we receive.

Because each time we hand a bag to someone, the homeless man that always holds the door open at the post office, the one that sits quietly in his wheelchair on a street corner, something happens.  In that connection, in that very real, very human connection, we are reminded that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.  The exchange is almost like a prayer.

And every year, the kindness is humbling.  The comments range from "Well, you are just too much....." to "God bless" to sometimes, no comment at all, just the kindness of a soul seen in the depths of someone's eyes.

And as we finished handing the bags out this year, there was a quiet that fell over the car. A deep solitude and quiet reflection.  And without a word being said, there was an understanding that caring for another human being is perhaps the greatest gift of all.

Wishing you and your loved ones a very special holiday season.

 

I don’t know what to do when things like today happen. The grief is overwhelming. 

So when school called this morning to say that one of my little ones wasn’t feeling well, I canceled my meetings and went to scoop her up. 

Her heart was breaking over a stomach ache and a playdate she was going to miss. 

My heart was breaking for the families that were going to miss so much more. 

There would be no nightly rituals, no teeth to brush, no bed time stories.  "The End" came far too quickly. 

And as the day wore on, I looked over at my laptop, where so much time has been spent researching children’s health, how to protect them from harm, but I couldn’t bring myself to leave her side.  So I picked up my guitar.

“Mom, will you play ‘He’s got the whole world in his hands’?” she asked.

And that moment hung in the air.....

I turned to her and said, “I will, little one, but you will have to sing the words."

And as she sang, I reflected on what has happened and how what lies in front of us, as we work to protect the health of children, can sometimes seem insurmountable. 

But 'insurmountable' isn't an option, and love is a rocket fuel. 

And in the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.:

“Unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.”

It is up to us.   

 

 

 

As to be expected, there was a scientist in the field of genomics aggressively speaking out against one of my TEDx talks.  It sparked an outcry that hit a resurgence again this week.

It’s not the first time that my work has come under fire, nor will it be the last as the information that I present is disruptive.  To many, it creates a cognitive dissonance - a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas, beliefs or values and can often elicit a strong emotional reaction.

And it did just that earlier this year, whena scientist at the University of Florida which houses the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences questioned one of my presentations.

So when I looked into the work of the person making the accusations, I was not surprised that he had dedicated his life to plant research and genetic engineering.  His commitment is remarkable.  I understand it, because it is that same dedication that I have to my research and work into the financial engineering and the role it can play in the integrity of science. 

That dedication, that level of commitment, is something to be honored, not slandered, as it is not without sacrifice.  And we actually went on to speak, sharing our concerns over barriers to entry that can hinder innovation, the impact that climate change is having on food supplies and other topics.  

But his criticism was that of a subject that continues to raise itself as to whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe. 

The scientific debate tends to center around whether genetically engineered crops have been “thoroughly tested,” while a debate around the financial engineering of the science continues to grow.

And with deep respect for the scientist with whom I eventually spoke and his research and dedication to his students, it is important to look at the independent science, because as the Union for Concerned Scientists states:

“Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment.”

In a Science Magazine in 2000, a Spanish researcher named Jose L. Domingo who later went on to write a 2007 paper, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature,” found only seven peer reviewed papers on genetically engineered crop safety as of 2000, most of them dealing with short-term nutritional effects.  

According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, who worked in Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997, served for 1.5 years as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at the end of the Carter Administration, and following the election of Ronald Reagan, moved to Capitol Hill in early 1981 and was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues, what that means is that at the time that two genetically engineered products were approved for the food supply, there were no studies in the open scientific literature.

Let’s stop and think about that for a minute in the context of something that is more familiar. 

Can you imagine if a medical device or a new pharmaceutical drug were introduced with no studies in the open scientific literature for public review?  Or if a car was introduced onto the highway in the same manner?

The concern is shared by the National Academy of Sciences in the paper, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences, "As with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health."

Furthermore, according to Benbook, as of 2007 and Domingo's more recent and comprehensive review, a “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature", there are still no more than about ten studies assessing the toxicological impact of genetically engineered ingredients in our food supply, almost all are limited in scope (there is a review of 24 studies focusing on nutritional equivalency), and short term, with most of them dealing with genetically engineered foods other than corn and soybeans.  

Which means that the bottom line is that there are no published, peer reviewed studies on the toxicological impacts of today's commercial genetically engineered ingredients now found in our food supply, and almost none on older genetically engineered ingredients, that provide evidence that show that these foods are toxicologically safe.  

At the conclusion of the abstract for the paper, the author himself poses the question: “where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?”

To me, that is a question so important that it was unequivocally an “Idea Worth Spreading,” a question worth asking, a dialogue worth having.   

Correlation is not causation but with the Centers for Disease Control now reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of fifteen, that there has been a 265% increase in the rates of hostpiatlizations related to food allergic reaction, it is worth noting that “no evidence of harm” is not the same as “evidence of no harm.” 

What we are witnessing, through 55 members of Congress that have called for the labeling of these ingredients, the over one million Americans who have sent comments to the FDA asking for the same, interest in a TEDx talk given by a former financial analyst, author and mother of four, is a movement, perhaps begun by the Spanish researcher with his ask for the scientific evidence showing that genetically engineered foods are toxicologically safe, and a call for the labeling of these foods, as they are labeled in over 40 countries around the world, until we have more science.

It is a call for studies that might alert a pregnant woman working on a farm about the impact that her exposure to these crops and the chemicals used to produce them might have on the health of her unborn babies.

It is a call for science and for the research that tells a mother if her child is allergic to conventional soybeans, the kind that has been in our food supply for generations, or if her child is allergic to the genetically engineered components now found in soybeans that were introduced in the late 1990s. 

It is a call for the scientific tests that would enable a father to test his child for those differences at his allergist’s office.

It is a call for science and our right to know about the foods that we are eating and what their impact might be on the health of our families. 

Is correlation causation?  Not at all, but with millions of Americans beginning to wake up to the fact that we have additives in our food supply, from lean beef trimmings, to artificial growth hormones to genetically engineered ingredients, additives that were not in our foods a generation ago, we are asking for more science, integrity in science, full disclosure of the financial engineering behind the science, and for labels and the right to make an informed choice about what we are feeding our families. 

We have learned what can happen otherwise, from the tobacco industry to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, so I hope that the TED team will continue the conversation with consumers, genetic engineers as well as financial ones, economists and the medical community in a forum in which attendees can express their opinions and one that requires full disclosure of any institutional ties, research grants or patents of those involved to preserve the dialogue and the scientific integrity of the discussion.  

Because as Carl Sagan once said, "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology."

An idea worth spreading?  A dialogue worth having? Absolutely. 

And while we talk about it, let's label these ingredients as they are labeled in countries around the world - like England, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, China, Russia and India, so that Americans have the same liberty to know that these new ingredients have been introduced into our food, too. 

 

Additional Resources: 

Scientific Integrity: Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf
Faculty Endowments: http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/ProfessorshipInfo.asp?ProfessorshipFund=007489
Kevin Folta's Blog: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/03/complete-insanity-in-theater-built-by.html
UF Scientists Collaborate with Monsanto: http://news.ifas.ufl.edu/2011/10/14/uf-scientists-collaborate-with-monsanto-to-develop-improved-computer-model-for-corn-production/
The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: A Study in Organizational Ethics http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/pdfs/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Challenger%20Disaster.pdf
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

"General Mills products are now banned form my house.
If they can't come clean about the ingredients in their cereals, then I don't want them in my house."
~posted yesterday on Cheerios Facebook page.   

The eater had just learned that Cheerios contain genetically engineered ingredients, novel ingredients for which no long-term human safety studies have been conducted, and that the company had failed to label these ingredients on their cereal boxes giving consumers the ability to make an informed choice when it comes to feeding their families.

Cheerios has just launched a new app and a new Facebook campaign calling for customer feedback, but what happened could not have been in their forward looking statements.

As consumers began posting, it became clear: eaters felt duped.

And they were using social media to broadcast their sentiment.

Cheerios is a staple in so many households.  It was in ours.  So it's tough to learn that these ingredients were quietly slipped into our food supply without labels in the 1990s, especially for those of us that fed our children these cereals, hopped up on ingredients now patented by some of the world's largest chemical corporation for their novelty.  It's not what any mom or dad or eater really wants to learn.

But we are having a food awakening, largely driven by the rates of diseases that we are seeing around the country and social media.  41% of are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes, seven-fold increases in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions has occurred and at least 2 children in every school classroom now have a food allergy.

Today, food contains foreign proteins, known as genetically modified organisms ("GMOs") that never before existed in our food supply.  Favorite brands like Cheerios now contain genetically engineered ingredients.  These ingredients weren't in the Cheerios we ate as kids.  And food allergies are when are bodies sees food as foreign and launches an inflammatory response to drive out the foreign invader.

So are these genetically engineered ingredients causing the allergic reaction?  Are we allergic to the foods we ate as kids or to these new proteins now found in our foods?  And why are companies so allergic to labeling these genetically engineered ingredients? 

Walk into any allergist office and ask if they have a test to determine if you are allergic to genetically engineered soybeans or organic soybeans and you will most likely be met with a blank stare. If you ask if you are allergic to milk or the artificial growth hormones created by genetically engineering an e.coli bacteria, you'll be met with a similar look.  The fact is we don't yet have those tests, and we just don't know.

Which is in part why countries around the world, from all of the countries in the European Union, to the UK, to Australia, Japan, even Russia, China and India label these ingredients.  Because we do not yet know what the trajectory looks like when it comes to long-term exposure and human consumption.

Some consumers are taking it into their own hands.  They are launching petitions, with millions calling on the FDA to label these ingredients.  They are introducing ballot initiatitives, asking for the labeling of these ingredients at the state level.  And they are reaching out directly to the companies for market-driven solutions, highlighting the legal risks that continuing to carry these ingredients in their products, unlabeled, appears to present.  From lawsuits aimed at Frito-Lay to another aimed at the makers of Goldfish, consumers are coming together, demanding the right to know what is in their food and demanding truth in labeling.

It makes sense, as liberty is a founding principal of our country.  And the liberty to know what ingredients are in the foods we eat everyday seems fundamental.

So how hard is it to change an ingredient label? 

Changing labels is common practice.  The food industry actually labels genetically engineered ingredients in other countries around the world.  They also label allergens, fat content, gluten free here in the U.S., and those labels are constantly changing. Adding the words "genetically engineered" in front of the soybean or canola oil or in from of the words "corn starch" is not going to be what breaks the bank. What might get expensive for food companies is when the customer base begins to shrink once consumers are aware that these ingredients have been inserted into some of their favorite foods without their knowledge.  Expenses might also begin to pile up with  the growing number of lawsuits or the decline in sales as a growing number of consumers choose to opt out of foods that contain these new ingredients.

So in light of this growing awareness, this food awakening and the consumer sentiment towards genetically engineered foods so swiftly demonstrated on Cheerios Facebook page, the food industry might want to turn its focus to the supply chain and how to source more non-genetically engineered ingredients. Work with the farmers to build out supply.  Work with the consumers to address the growing demand.  It's a great brand building opportunity, especially in light of the fact that a lot of these corporations already make products free from genetically engineered ingredients for eaters in other countries.  Manage the fiduciary duty to avoid any liability that genetically engineered ingredients might incur.

The bottom line is that it's never too late to change.  From Kashi cereal to Cheerios, the fate of the food companies does not need to be tied to the chemical and pesticide companies.  Food companies have the opportunity to pivot, to win the allegiance of customers and to go from zero to hero overnight if they are willing to focus on progress not perfection.

And If "pink slime" is any indication of what consumer sentiment can do to an industry seemingly overnight, the food industry executives might want to consider their fiduciary duty to manage risk, reduce liability and build out a supply chain that contains non genetically engineered ingredients in order to meet this growing  consumer demand.

Imagine the campaign: "Around the country, from California to DC, millions of Americans are asking for the labeling of genetically engineered ingredients.  We hear you.  But rather than label these ingredients, we are going to take it a step further and make our products without them, the way we do in other countries, but we need your help. Together, let's redesign the American food system."

In the words of George Eliot:  "It's never too late to become what you might have been."

To learn more, please visit www.justlabelit.org and www.labelgmos.org.

"General Mills products are now banned form my house.
If they can't come clean about the ingredients in their cereals, then I don't want them in my house."

So read a post on Cheerios Facebook page .   The eater had just learned that Cheerios contain genetically engineered ingredients, new ingredients for which no long-term human safety studies have been conducted, and that the company had failed to label these ingredients on their cereal boxes giving consumers the ability to make an informed choice when it comes to feeding their families.

Cheerios has just launched a new app and a new Facebook campaign, but what happened could not have been in their forward looking statements.

As consumer after consumer began posting, it became clear: eaters felt duped.

And they were using social media to broadcast their sentiment.

It's tough to learn that these ingredients were quietly slipped into our food supply without labels in the 1990s, especially for those of us that fed our children these cereals, hopped up on ingredients now patented by some of the world's largest chemical corporation for their novelty.  It's not what any mom or dad or eater really wants to learn.

But we are having a food awakening, largely driven by the rates of diseases that we are seeing around the country and social media.  41% of are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes, seven-fold increases in hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions has occurred and at least 2 children in every school classroom now have a food allergy.

Today, food contains foreign proteins, known as genetically modified organisms ("GMOs") that never before existed in our food supply.  Favorite brands like Cheerios now contain genetically engineered ingredients.  These ingredients weren't in the Cheerios we ate as kids.  And food allergies are when are bodies sees food as foreign and launches an inflammatory response to drive out the foreign invader.

So are these genetically engineered ingredients causing the allergic reaction?  Are we allergic to the foods we ate as kids or to these new proteins now found in our foods?  And why are companies like the makers of Cheerios so allergic to labeling these  genetically engineered ingredients? 

Walk into any allergist office and ask if they have a test to determine if you are allergic to genetically engineered soybeans or organic soybeans and you will most likely be met with a blank stare. Allergic to milk?  Or the artificial growth hormones created by genetically engineering an e.coli bacteria?  The fact is we just don't know.

Which is in part why countries around the world, from all of the countries in the European Union, to the UK, to Australia, Japan, even Russia, China and India label these ingredients.  Because we do not yet know what the trajectory looks like when it comes to long-term exposure and human consumption.

Some consumers are taking it into their own hands.  They are launching petitions, with millions calling on the FDA to label these ingredients.  They are introducing ballot initiatitives, asking for the labeling of these ingredients at the state level.  And they are reaching out directly to the companies for market-driven solutions, highlighting the legal risks that continuing to carry these ingredients in their products, unlabeled, appears to present.  From lawsuits aimed at Frito-Lay to another aimed at the makers of Goldfish, consumers are coming together, demanding the right to know what is in their food and demanding truth in labeling.

It makes sense, as liberty is a founding principal of our country.  And the liberty to know what ingredients are in the foods we eat everyday seems fundamental.

So how hard is it to change an ingredient label? 

Changing labels is common practice.  The food industry actually labels genetically engineered ingredients in other countries around the world.  They also label allergens, fat content, gluten free here in the U.S., and those labels are constantly changing. Adding the words "genetically engineered" in front of the soybean or canola oil or in from of the words "corn starch" is not going to be what breaks the bank. What might get expensive for food companies is when the customer base begins to shrink once consumers are aware that these ingredients have been inserted into some of their favorite foods without their knowledge.  Expenses might also begin to pile up with  the growing number of lawsuits or the decline in sales as a growing number of consumers choose to opt out of foods that contain these new ingredients.

So in light of this growing awareness, this food awakening and the consumer sentiment towards genetically engineered foods so swiftly demonstrated on Cheerios Facebook page, the food industry might want to turn its focus to the supply chain and how to source more non-genetically engineered ingredients. Work with the farmers to build out supply.  Work with the consumers to address the growing demand.  It's a great brand building opportunity, especially in light of the fact that a lot of these corporations already make products free from genetically engineered ingredients for eaters in other countries.  Manage the fiduciary duty to avoid any liability that genetically engineered ingredients might incur.

The bottom line is that it's never too late to change.  From Kashi cereal to Cheerios, the fate of the food companies does not need to be tied to the chemical and pesticide companies.  Food companies have the opportunity to pivot, to win the allegiance of customers and to go from zero to hero overnight if they are willing to focus on progress not perfection.

And If "pink slime" is any indication of what consumer sentiment can do to an industry seemingly overnight, the food industry executives might want to consider their fiduciary duty to manage risk, reduce liability and build out a supply chain that contains non genetically engineered ingredients in order to meet this growing  consumer demand.

Imagine the campaign: "Around the country, from California to DC, millions of Americans are asking for the labeling of genetically engineered ingredients.  We hear you.  But rather than label these ingredients, we are going to take it a step further and make our products without them, the way we do in other countries, but we need your help. Together, let's redesign the American food system."

In the words of George Eliot:  "It's never too late to become what you might have been."

To learn more, please visit www.justlabelit.org and www.labelgmos.org.

Sometimes you need a little shot of awesome.  And this video has it.  Here's to all of us, the human spirit and the little things that we do every day that make the world a better place.

Stars like Emmy Award winners Michael J. Fox and moms like Julie Bowen and Ali Larter have joined the efforts to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. 

"You know, sometimes all you need is 20 seconds of insane courage.  Just literally, 20 seconds of just embarrassing bravery, and I promise you, something great will come of it." 

That was a line by Matt Damon to his son in "We Bought a Zoo."  And I am reminded of it almost daily now in this work.  

Tonight, that moment happened again, when a farmer quietly reached out, sharing his decision to move away from genetically engineered crops, crops whose yields were not delivering as promised, concerned over what the chemical treatments he was applying to them were doing to the health of his plants and to the soil. "Please do not mention my name," he wrote.

There have been times in the last few years when I have questioned whether I had the courage to do this, when I have wanted to run, to bolt, paralyzed with fear, whether confronting a room full of food industry executives or speaking to a room full of commodity farmers, and it is moments like this one that I am again reminded just how important courage, every 20 seconds of it, can be.  

In a recent Facebook post, about cleaning up the food supply, a friend wrote, "I have met the most courageous and inspiring people along this journey…people with enough conviction to stand up and fight the fight.”

And I thought about the journey I've been on and the people I’ve met, some for whom I am so profoundly grateful that there are not words.

They are the ones with the strength, courage and love - for their country, their families, their beliefs - to stand up for what they know is right in the face of what might seem like insurmountable odds.  

And when you meet them, someone who is willing to do that, to speak the truth, to put their name and face on what they believe, it changes you.

In no way has this happened more than with someone that I met a few years ago over breakfast.  We’d been introduced by an old college friend. 

And as we sat over a table that day, his wife beside him, we spoke a bit about our food system and a lot about capitalism.  It was a language understood by both of us and a recognition of a system in fundamental need of an overhaul.

And a friendship started that morning for which I will always be grateful.

So when he asked if I’d be interested in “curating” a collection of food items for a movement called MADE that is working to not only bring a newfound appeal to the Made in the USA brand but also to return jobs to America, I said yes.

Working with the MADE team, a visionary group of thought-leaders, idea-generators and solution-builders, we created a collection that centers over a table, because it is over a table that we put our heads together, laugh, inspire, give thanks, share stories and collaborate.  

It is over a table that our greatest gifts can be found.   

Visit Made Collection, which includes big things and little ones that center around the heart of the home, knowing that every purchase you make supports the growing movement to restore jobs here in America.