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 Saturday, May 19th, is Food Revolution Day.  It is an unprecedented call to action that will inspire, educate and empower people around the world to stand up for real food.

And if someone had suggested that I'd be doing this a few years ago, I'd have said they were nuts.  I was nuking nuggets and burning noodles.  I wasn't a foodie, just a former financial analyst with four kids. 

But life changes you and an allergic reaction in one of our children over breakfast did just that, making me an unlikely crusader in this food movement.  And this week, I am thrilled to be joining thousands of people worldwide who will be participating in events to raise awareness on preventing diet-related diseases and perhaps diseases and conditions that we don't yet know are diet related (because those studies have not yet been done).  

It's been a pretty big shift, and it's only been six years since that breakfast and the launch of AllergyKids.  And six years ago, in all honesty, I'm not sure if we were quite ready for this message.  But having spent the last several years, working with families and corporations around the country, politicians on both sides of the aisles and countless other Americans inspired into action, one thing is certain, we are ready now.  

We are having a food awakening in our country, and it's largely driven by the unspoken truth we see every day in the declining health of our families.  From "pink slime" to "meat glue" and genetically engineered crops hardwired to withstand saturation with chemicals, around the country, we are realizing that not knowing about how our food is produced is not good for the health of our loved ones.  

Ignorance may have once been bliss, but today, the majority of the world's population is more likely to die from obesity than hunger.  In fact, in the United States, more people die from diet-related disease every year than drugs, alcohol and war combined.  That's not good for our children and that's not good for our country .  

Which is why I am so proud to be supporting the remarkable efforts of Jamie Oliver and the Food Revolution team on Food Revolution Day to help inspire and empower people to believe in their ability to create change.

In Colorado, we will be inviting people to our local Farmers Market to bring any piece of junk food, processed food, fake food (you know, the nutrient-void kind that packs nothing but calories) on Saturday, May 19th, and swap it out for some real food, full of ingredients that will nourish your family that have been donated by amazing companies that were founded on the principal that real food should be available and affordable to all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status or zip code. 

We're calling the event the Food Swap and will include fun and games for the little ones, as well as an adult-sized spelling bee sure to leave you absolutely stumped.  Details are here.

And then later that evening, I'll be joining Jamie and four dinner guests from around the country and around the world for what is sure to be a heartfelt, insightful and inspiring hangout and a dinner conversation that we hope you will be part of (learn how by clicking here).

The food movement needs you.  It needs all of us to lend our voices. The CEOs of our corporations are listening, they have children, too, as do members of Congress.  And while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something.  So lend your talents, share your love, and become part of the Food Revolution.  And let's create this legacy for the health of our loved ones together. 

Recently, the social media food world has been abuzz with a Chipotle commercial that includes a song by Willie Nelson urging us to go "back to the start".  The premise is that agriculture is no longer what we want it to be with too many toxic inputs, externalized costs and unintended consequences.

Anyone who knows me knows that I have real concern over the way that our current agricultural system is structured: farmers are contractually obligated to buy certain products, while using seeds that have not been tested for their long-term performance and then have to be licensed for use due to their patents, and are obligated to a system in which at any time, fuel, fertilizer or licensing fees can suddenly spike, impacting their incomes, their livelihoods, their debt levels and so much more.  

And yet at the same time, modern day farming has brought tremendous advances.  Having spent time with farmers in Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Washington state and other parts of our amazing country, I am in awe of what farming looks like today. I have listened and learned about tractors outfitted with computers that enable things their grandfathers could never have dreamt of.  A recent post, highlighted by Monsanto on Twitter and seen on America's Farmers blog (written by a farmer's wife who is also a mother of four) shares that insight and paints the picture of what farming looks like today for those who haven't been able to get there themselves. She writes:

"Today, a farmer feeds 155 people. In 1960, one farmer fed only 26. Today, our tractors and combines are mostly run off of computers...dropping one seed every six inches for proper placing of a corn plant. Our sprayers and manure spreaders are also monitored by computers to spread correct amounts of nutrients over our precious soils..." 

And as I reflect on all of it, of the passion, the dedication and the love on display, including Bill Gates recent public relations tour to rebrand farming as 'high-tech agriculture," I can't help but think that what we need isn't a rebranding campaign or a food fight but a food education, one in which there is an honest  dialogue, with experts brought to the table, from all parts of the food continuum.  

A dialogue that educates, revealing the limits and constraints we have not yet seen because of the lack of open science due to the patents that protect the changes in our food supply as intellectual property of chemical giants.  

A dialogue that informs not just to farmers, but also livestock breeders and consumers, one that brings truth and transparency to the table, that isn't afraid of labels that are so descriptive and informative that farmers and consumers are given the freedom of choice on which our country was founded.

A dialogue that through its revelations, lowers the barriers to entry so that rather than a monopolized food supply that does not allow for the best, most efficient, effective and affordable products to be brought to market, we can create a food system that gives farmers financial flexibility to choose the best practices, consumers the information they need to make an informed choice when it comes to feeding their families, and data required to build a food system that is embraced around the world, so that once again, American farmers are restored to their place of admiration.  

We're not there yet.  Not close, so until we are, I'll keep working on it, and I hope that you will, too.  Lend your voice to the food dialogues, lend your talents to creating a healthy food system, and remember, that the most important thing that you could do before doing anything is to listen.