Most people that follow food issues had their eyes on California last night.  Voters in the state were going to the polls to determine if the United States would finally join countries around the world and label ingredients recently introduced into our food that have been genetically engineered to produce their own insecticidal toxins, ingredients that are now regulated by the EPA as pesticides.

The legislation had the opportunity to impact all of us.  California recently voted on labeling an ingredient found in sodas, due to its potential link to cancer.  But rather than label it, soda companies decided to reformulate their products and they removed the ingredient in products around the country.  The same fate could happen with these genetically engineered ingredients if they were labeled - companies might simply want to opt out rather than carry any liability that a label might cause.

So the question put to California voters was essentially: should ingredients, now regulated as pesticides, be labeled in our food?

But it wasn't exactly framed that way.  And in the months leading up to the election, a tsunami of money poured into the state from chemical and pesticide companies from around the world.  These corporations selling the products, both the genetically engineered ingredients and the chemicals used on them, didn't feel it was neccessary to label these ingredients, they didn't want to cause alarm.

And with polling results in, they won in the California voting booth.

But did they win on the national stage?

Because rather than consider this "the end" of the issue, perhaps it should be seen as the beginning of a long-overdue dialogue in the United States, a dialogue that the industry spent $45 million dollars to try to keep from having.

Any grocery store shopper knows that a lot gets labeled: orange juice has to be labeled if it comes from concentrate, allergens are labeled, fat content, too.  But we have not yet joined over 50 countries around the world and called for the labeling of ingredients that have been engineered by the chemical companies to withstand increasing doses of their chemicals.

A recent Wall Street Journal poll asked: Do you think genetically engineered foods should be labeled?  87% said yes.

This is not a party issue, it is an American one.

And as more of us are waking up to the fact that the United States remains one of the only developed countries in the world to have failed to label these ingredients in our food supply, the question now seems to be: Is now the time to label genetically engineered foods, foods whose genetic makeup has been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of toxic chemicals or to produce insecticides within the plant itself.

The chemical companies that are both making the foods and selling the chemicals required to grow them often claim that their products are needed to feed the world.

It's an emotional argument.  Powerful, too, and does a lot to drive shareholder return.  But in light of the fact that 2 billion people are overweight or obese and 1 billion are hungry, according to the USDA, 40 percent of the food we produce is never eaten.

Is a food shortage really the problem?  Or is it a shortage in earnings visibility that has these companies quietly pushing their products on us, spending $45 million to make sure that they don't have to label them for fear that labels might lead Americans to join eaters in other countries and  opt out?

"The world is hungry because of politics and economics, not because we can't grow food" a farmer from Australia recently said.  And if you go wide, beyond the consumers and farmers, and dig into the politics of food, you realize how complicated and politically, economically and finanicially loaded the issue has become.

The companies engineering these crops to withstand their chemicals  say they are safe.  They've conducted their own research because the FDA has not.

It's not the first time that ingredients with the potential to cause harm have been marketed this way.  Doctors marketed cigarettes to our grandmothers.  Like the tobacco industry, the pesticide and chemical industries fund research, protected under intellectual property law that is not subject to peer review, and then present it as evidence that their products are safe.  That's their job, to market their products so that they can drive shareholder return.  But what about the rest of us, the world's 7 billion stakeholders in the food supply - those of us, not known by the names given to our portfolios, but those of us simply called "eaters"?

A researcher with the National Council for Scientific and Technical Research and director of the Molecular Embryology Laboratory said,"The noteworthy thing is that there are no studies of embryos on the world level and none where (the chemical routinely doused on these genetically engineered crops) glyphosate is injected into embryos.”

We don't know what these foods are doing to our children.  And while correlation is not causation, from 1992-2007, there was a9.4% increase in childhood cancers in the United States.  Children in the United States where cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in kids under the age of fifteen also have skyrocketing rates of food allergies and have earned the title "Generation Rx".

Is it the new, genetically engineered ingredients in the food?  We'd have no idea, since there are no labels.

That's hard to hear, especially for those of us that dismissed concerns around genetically engineered foods as some hippy, fringy, purist thing.  It can be so hard to hear that when industry claims there is "no evidence of harm", you almost want to believe them.  But if you think about it, without labels, there simply is no evidence.  And "no evidence of harm" is not the same as "evidence of no harm."

Labels are needed to prove a direct cause and effect. And while we don't yet have them, mounting hospitalization records, record drug sales and an increasingly allergic, diabetic, cancer-stricken and obese population in which 46 children are diagnosed with cancer every day might suggest that we should take a closer look and introduce labeling here in the United States as a conservative measure to protect the heath of our citizens, the way the health of citizens in every country in the European Union, Australia, Japan, Russia and China are protected (to name a few).

And while in the face of record amounts of campaign spending money by the chemical, pesticide and junk food companies, the labeling initiative was defeated in California, what that campaign started was a long-overdue national dialogue.  This is not "the end" of anything but the beginning of a national discussion.

It brought an awareness to the fact that the FDA does not require pre-market safety testing of these foods, that no long-term human, prenatal or pediatric studies have been conducted and that Americans remain one of the only developed countries in the world whose citizens have not been give the liberty of labels in order to make an informed choice about the foods that we are eating.

States matter.  To get a feel for just how much take a look at the first seat belt law which was introduced by a state in 1984, in no time, others followed.  And today, in the absence of any federal seat belt law, it speaks to the important role that states play in protecting the health of their populations by using preventative measures to protect citizens from potential harm.

So what can Americans do next?  Keep up the pressure at the state level.  Begin a dialogue.  Find a friend who cares about this as much as you do.  Join the national movement that is calling on the FDA to address the issue on behalf of all Americans.  A 53 to 47% loss is not something to bury heads over given that the opposition flooded the campaign with $45 million in marketing, but rather something for which to keep heads up, looking forward, as we focus on the FDA and work to address this at the national level.

The health of our country and our economy are dependent on the heath of Americans.  41% of Americans are now expected to get cancer and there is a growing burden that disease is placing on our economy.  Labeling these new ingredients in our food supply, ingredients that are now regulated by the EPA as "pesticides,"  just might prove to be one of the smartest economic measures of our time.

To learn more about genetically engineered foods and the pesticides being routinely applied to them, please visit one of the following sites, known for their independent research:

• Just Label It
  
• Our Right to Know

Large processed food companies have claimed that giving consumers basic information about what's in their food would lead to higher food costs.  The industry has even gone so far as to "base most of its claims of higher food prices on a study that it paid for" reports the LA Times.

But it's not true.

And in no way is this more obvious than when it comes to labeling genetically engineered ingredients in our everyday foods.

These ingredients are labeled around the world, so if they are found in box of Corn Flakes in Europe, they're labeled, same goes for if they are found in cereal boxes in Japan, the UK, Australia and even in cereal boxes in Russia, China and India.

But not here.  Here in the United States, where you'd think we'd have the liberty to choose what we are feeding our families, we don't.  We aren't told that these ingredients are in our food.  On top of that, the companies putting these ingredients into our food claim that if they had to label them, it would make food cost more.

It's just not true.  Take a look at the image above to see what a box of Corn Flakes costs in countries around the world, countries that eat our American food products that either don't contain these genetically engineered ingredients or that label them.  In every country listed, that box of cereal costs less.

It appears that including this new, patented technology known as genetic engineering in our food here in the United States ends up costing us more.

So while our food companies are labeling these ingredients or not using them in the products that they distribute in other countries and eaters overseas are paying less, we end up being charged more to consume foods that contain these new patented ingredients for which no long-term human health studies have been conducted.

That can be hard to stomach.

But it doesn't have to be that way.  Vote with your dollars, let the FDA and the food companies know how you feel, about the price points and the new ingredients they are pumping into our foods, because it is together, leveraging our collective voices and talents, that we can create a transparent and healthy food system for our families here in the United States, too.

Over the years, the industry is fond of summing up public concern over these ingredients by quoting Alexis de Tocqueville who said, "It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."

But the truth really isn't all that complex.  The truth is that we simply want the liberty that labels give us so that Americans can also have the right to choose what we are feeding our families. 

You can watch this video below or visit www.carighttoknow.org or www.justlabelit.org to learn more.

We live in one of the world's most celebrated democracies, but when it comes to election day, less than half of us vote.  Maybe it's because it's on a Tuesday, maybe it's because it's the week after Halloween and we've still got sugar hangovers.  Whatever the reason, Google wants to change that by giving us the information we need to navigate the process with a Voter Information Tool.  

It helps you find your local polling place, learn what's on the ballot, and get these ideas out to the community, because voting is contagious.  It's not about who you vote for, just that you get out and do it.

Why is this so important?  As a friend recently highlighted "The United States has one of the worst (voter) turnout rates in the world.  Of the world's 172 democracies, the United States is 138th.  Of wealthy countries, it's dead last."

We're better than that.  Change starts with us.  

I wrote this about a year ago for a friend, but as Hurricane Sandy hurls towards loved ones on the East Coast, heaving her winds, these words still ring true today.

As unprecedented storms, epic heat waves and floods continue to hit, as well as the wild temperature fluctuations, drought and scorched and infertile grounds, it is beginning to feel like our planet is sick, with a growing list of conditions.

Much like our children.

And just as our increasingly allergic and asthmatic kids have trouble breathing or are covered in dry patches, running fevers or launching inflammatory responses to things they have ingested, the Earth appears to be having an allergic reaction of her own.

We have poured fossil fuel over her skin, filled her airways with pollution and poisoned her water with everything from oil to agrichemicals to pharmaceutical drugs. 

Is it any wonder that her health appears to be failing, her waters swirling and her airways struggling?

If the Earth were a child that was this sick, what would this condition be called?

Perhaps it could be called "climate fever." She is running hot and cold with all kinds of conditions, upheavals and reactions that have the potential to cause tremendous harm.

And her "fever" affects all of us. Families, friends, farmers.  

Is it short-term? How long will it last?  

The fact of the matter is that dirty air, water, soil, climate.....they affect all of us.  They don't care what we think or what side of the aisle we are on...and neither do storms like this one.

How would we treat this Earth if she were our own sick child?   

So with the image of that child in mind, perhaps we should consider a new approach. And rather than "fight global warming" and get into "he said/she said" debates, arguing over how sick this child really is or who is to blame, perhaps it's time that we simply care for our planet as a mother might care for a child.

And rather than the routine dousing of her skin with toxic pesticides and agrichemicals, we might consider reducing her exposure to these chemicals and cultivate an approach to agriculture that isn't chemically or fossil fuel dependent, like the one recently recommended by the United Nations.

And rather than continuing to inject her with IV-like instruments used to extract the very oil and fossil fuel that is harming her, we could consider building clean energy sources and alternative energy infrastructures to give her the means with which to grow and thrive without the risk of toxicity.

We could call on our collective talents and insights to lend to the healing of her condition.

And rather than focus on what short-term economic advantages can be obtained through the extraction of her resources, recognize that we need to care for her as if our wellbeing depended on it.   

Because it does.  

And while new data shows that countries like China are contributing more than the United States and Canada combined to climate pollution, we have the extraordinary opportunity to embrace a moral authority, to design and create new energy systems that will not only serve us economically and financially but also resourcefully and sustainably for generations to come.  

A child won't remain healthy living on dirty air, dirty water or dirty food.  Our planet is no different. 

And while these changes won't happen overnight, if we leverage our collective talents, we can begin making them, because we're a pretty resilient source of renewable energy ourselves, and in the words of George Eliot, "it is never too late to be what you might have been."

Foreign and out of state chemical companies are flooding California with money to oppose a a food labeling initiative called Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered food.  Genetically engineered foods, governed by labeling laws in 61 countries around the world, are  foods that have been engineered with certain commercial traits, for example, to withstand increasing doses of synthetic chemicals or engineered to be insecticide-producing.

 Of the top ten donors to "No on 37", an initiative working to keep consumers in the dark about these ingredients and new commercial traits in their food:

• Four are subsidiaries of foreign companies (BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, Nestle).
• Nine are out-of-state companies.  Only one – Nestle USA – is based in California, but it is a subsidiary of Nestle S.A., which is based in Switzerland.
• Three are subsidiaries of foreign pesticide companies (BASF, Bayer, Syngenta) that are not allowed to grow genetically engineered crops in their own countries for health and environmental reasons. 
• Six are pesticide companies, which together have given $20 million to oppose Proposition 37.  None of these companies are based in California.

According to Stacy Malkan, media director for Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know campaign, “Foreign and non-California companies are trying to buy this election, and keep California mothers and fathers from finding out what’s really in their children’s food."

“It’s especially stunning that the opposition is being bankrolled by foreign pesticide companies that are using American families as guinea pigs when their genetically engineered crops are shunned back at home,” Malkan said.

Switzerland, home to Nestle, one of the companies funding the initiative that would keep Americans from knowing about these ingredients in our food, has banned the growing of genetically engineered crops since 2005.  Germany severely restricts genetically engineered crops in Germany, and none are being planted there in 2012. The Swiss company Syngenta, along with German-based BASF and Bayer, have spent $2 million each to oppose Prop 37. (Also see recent story in Deutsche Welle.)

“These foreign companies are subverting our elections with a massive propaganda cocktail of lies and deception,” Malkan said.

Those are strong words, very strong, but in light of the fact that Nestle is headquartered in a country that has banned the growing of genetically engineered crops, it begs the question: why are our families being used as the guinea pigs in one of the largest feeding trials in history?

The bottom line is that the only thing that the labeling of genetically engineered foods threatens is the bottom line of the chemical companies that benefit from the commercialization of these products.

According to finance reports, so far, with the help of foreign chemical companies, the No on 37 campaign has raised a total of $40.7 million. The Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign has raised $5.3 million, largely from natural and organic food companies, and from more than 10,000 individual donors.

In other words, those wanting to keep consumers in the dark, bankrolled by foreign chemical companies and others, are able to outspend those working to give consumers the right to know by 8 to 1.

So how to level the playing field?

Love is more powerful than greed, and despite the tactics being employed by the chemical industry, in which they pose in front of Stanford building and use other forms of misrepresentation, the Yes on 37 campaign is also backed by more than 2,000 health, faith, labor and consumer groups including the American Public Health Association, California Nurses Association, California Council of Churches, United Farm Workers, California Labor Federation, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the United Food and Commercial Workers and many more. The full list of Yes on 37 endorsers is available here.

So while we may not have the financial muscle that these chemical companies do, perhaps the most powerful muscle we have is the heart.  So share this information with someone that you love, share one of these videos (Danny Devito shines a light here, while we share some thoughts here) with friends, family or anyone that has a family member with cancer, autism, ADHD, allergies or any one of the growing number of diseases that we are learning can have an environmental trigger like the ones produced by these chemical companies, so that together, we can not only protect the health of our families and our country, but our right to choose what we are feeding our loved ones. 

For more information about the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign, see www.CaRightToKnow.org. To learn more about genetically engineered foods, please visit www.JustLabelIt.org 

Foreign and out of state chemical companies are flooding California with money to oppose a a food labeling initiative called Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically engineered food so that consumers can know which foods have been engineered to withstand increasing doses of synthetic chemicals or have been engineered to create their own insecticides.

 Of the top ten donors to "No on 37", the initiative working to keep consumers in the dark about these ingredients in their food:

• Four are subsidiaries of foreign companies (BASF, Bayer, Syngenta, Nestle).
• Nine are out-of-state companies.  Only one – Nestle USA – is based in California, but it is a subsidiary of Nestle S.A., which is based in Switzerland.
• Three are subsidiaries of foreign pesticide companies (BASF, Bayer, Syngenta) that are not allowed to grow genetically engineered crops in their own countries for health and environmental reasons. 
• Six are pesticide companies, which together have given $20 million to oppose Proposition 37.  None of these companies are based in California.

“Foreign and non-California companies are trying to buy this election, and keep California mothers and fathers from finding out what’s really in their children’s food,” said Stacy Malkan, media director for Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know campaign.

“It’s especially stunning that the opposition is being bankrolled by foreign pesticide companies that are using American families as guinea pigs when their genetically engineered crops are shunned back at home,” Malkan said.

Switzerland, home to Nestle, one of the companies working to keep consumers in the dark, has banned the growing of genetically engineered crops since 2005.  Germany severely restricts genetically engineered crops in Germany, and none are being planted there in 2012. The Swiss company Syngenta, along with German-based BASF and Bayer, have spent $2 million each to oppose Prop 37. (Also see recent story in Deutsche Welle.)

“These foreign companies are subverting our elections with a massive propaganda cocktail of lies and deception,” Malkan said.

Those are strong words, very strong, but in light of the fact that Nestle is headquartered in a country that has banned the growing of genetically engineered crops, it begs the question: why are our families being used as the guinea pigs in one of the largest field trials in history?

On Friday, Oct. 19, food and consumer products companies contributed an additional $5.2 million to the No on 37 campaign.  Of the 35 contributors, only two are based in California, Nestle (a subsidiary of Swiss-based Nestle S.A.) and Clorox.

Thus far, the No on 37 campaign has raised a total of $40.7 million. The Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign has raised $5.3 million, largely from natural and organic food companies, and from more than 10,000 individual donors.

In other words, those wanting to keep consumers in the dark, bankrolled by foreign chemical companies and others, can outspend those working to give consumers the right to know by 8 to 1.

But love is more powerful than greed, and despite the tactics being employed by the chemical industry, in which they pose in front of Stanford building and use other forms of misrepresentation, the Yes on 37 campaign is also backed by more than 2,000 health, faith, labor and consumer groups including the American Public Health Association, California Nurses Association, California Council of Churches, United Farm Workers, California Labor Federation, Consumers Union, Public Citizen, the United Food and Commercial Workers and many more. The full list of Yes on 37 endorsers is available here.

So while we may not have the financial muscle that these chemical companies do, perhaps the most powerful muscle we have is the heart.  So share this information with someone that you love, someone that has a family member with cancer, autism, ADHD, allergies or any one of the growing number of diseases that we are learning can have an environmental trigger like the ones produced by these chemical companies, so that together, we can not only protect the health of our families and our country, but our right to choose what we are feeding our loved ones. 

For more information about the Yes on 37 California Right to Know campaign, see www.CaRightToKnow.org. To learn more about genetically engineered foods, please visit www.JustLabelIt.org 

A picture is worth a thousand words.  In this case, a little video does the trick.  

In this new video, bravely and creatively directed, learn the truth about what happens to the bears who drink sugary sodas, then share this with everyone that you love.  

According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest:

Though consumption has declined slightly in recent years, soda and sugary drinks still are the biggest single source of calories in the American diet, accounting for about 7 percent. 

And while Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, and other soda companies spend lavishly to position the products as sources of happiness, sugary drinks are directly linked to obesity and diabetes. 

Each additional sugary drink consumed per day increases the likelihood of a child becoming obese by about 60 percent. 

Drinking one or two sugary drinks per day increases one's risk for type 2 diabetes by 27 percent.

Those are tough stats to hear, but as The Real Bears site suggests, "Big soda companies have billions of dollars to tell their story, but we have each other."  And love.  That's a big one, too.

Learn more, get the facts, protect your loved ones at The Real Bears.

In the absence of any federal labeling law, California is trying to become the first state to label genetically engineered ingredients in foods.  This could impact the county, as they represent the largest state economy in the US and the 8th largest in the world.

How could this affect all of us?  When legislation was proposed in California for Coke and Pepsi to label a caramel color in their sodas as potentially carcinogenic, rather than do so, the soda giants reformulated their products....across the country.

If this legislation (Proposition 37) passes in California, as Jillian Michaels, Danny DeVito, Dave Matthews and others are urging in this public service announcement, the food industry might very well decide to reformulate their products here in the US for all of us, in order to avoid the liability that these labels might carry, removing GMOs from their products and replacing them with alternatives, much like what they have done in over 40 countries around the world, like all European countries, the UK, China, Australia, Japan and India, where GMOs are already labeled.

If you have friends or family in California, please share this important message, as we all have the right to know what we are eating, and what happens in California has the potential to impact all of us.

 To learn more about this proposition and its ability to impact all of us, please visit California's Right to Know

I've been called a lot of things over the last few years, but "Gentle Warrior" is a new one.  

The title comes on the heels of a talk that I gave at a luncheon in Los Angeles a few weeks ago.  It was an intimidating audience, but as I dove into the details, shedding light on the fact that this generation of children have earned the title of "Generation Rx" because of the rates of conditions and diseases like diabetes, cancer, autism and allergies, one mom took particular notice.  She happens to be an actress, with a website called, The Local Rose.

Today 1 in 3 Americans don't go to the doctor because of the high cost of care.  At the same time, almost 1 in 6 are on food stamps.  To top that off, 41% of us are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes.  And as I shared this data, she asked me to dive further into the details about our families and our food supply.  

Ignorance might have once been bliss, but at this point, it is no longer an option.  Which is why I am extraordinarily grateful for the work of Shiva Rose, her passion to protect children and the opportunity to answer some questions for her readers.

One of her last questions was:

 I heard you mention 41% of americans will get cancer. Why are we still asleep about this in our nation?

This is very difficult information to hear.  Cancer will now affect 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women in the US in their lifetime.  It is the leading cause of death for US Latinos.  And cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of 15.  

Recently, doctors have written in the New England Journal of Medicine that the escalating costs of cancer care, coupled with drug shortages, are creating a situation that could bankrupt our health care system if not addressed. No one wants to hear that. 

Obesity tends to be the focus in the media right now, and for good reason, as it leads to other diseases, including cancer (for which a third are attributable to diet and lifestyle), but it also enables the focus to be on personal responsibility.  Choose not to eat another bag of chips, drink another soda, says the food industry.  But what if the very chemicals in those cans are linked to cancer? 

With over 80,000 chemicals in use in our everyday products and in our food, only 200 have undergone safety testing.  And while correlation is not causation, the scope of the issue is enormous which is why it is so important that we all do our part to exercise precaution and try to reduce our exposure to manufactured chemicals, especially those now used on and in our foods, when and where we can, as most recently urged by the Presidents Cancer Panel.   

None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something.  So maybe that one thing is to "Eat fewer chemicals" Opt out when you can and where you can, remembering this is about progress not perfection, so don't make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good"

You can read the interview in its entirety here.