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

Health care. You couldn't pick a more loaded political topic (OK, maybe oil) which is absolutely fascinating.  Especially in light of the escalating rates of diseases in our country.  

Because the bottom line is that unfortunately, we are growing sicker by the year and in increasing need of a thriving health care system to address these conditions.

No one wants to admit these things, and yet the Centers for Disease Control continues to release alarming statistics: from cancer being the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of fifteen, to the escalating rates of asthma, to the increased hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions.  It's not just our health that is coming under pressure, our medical system is, too. 

It's something that I recently addressed as a keynote to a healthcare conference in Boston (with a short interview highlighting some stats below). 

But rather than careen into the darkness, let's not stop and pause for a moment to reflect on the state of our health and our healthcare system.  Let's dialogue, based on the principals of Joseph Schumpeter and that of creative disruption, and take a hard and honest look at the existing model in order to revolutionize the design of a new one.  

No other nation on the planet spends as much as we do on medical care.  As a matter of fact, no one spends more than 12% of their total economy, their GDP, on health care costs.

But according to TIME Magazine, "the most striking aspect of America's medical system remains how much of an outlier it is in the advanced industrial world."

What do we spend?  17%.  So 17 cents of every dollar floating around in our economy is spent in the medical system.  Sure, that's a great model if you are a company in the medical system capturing those expenditures, it drives shareholder return.  But what about the impact that these costs have on our families, corporations and ultimately our economy?

Well, let's take a look.

The fact of the matter is that we do worse than most other countries on almost every measure of health outcomes.  We lag behind countries like Bosnia and South Korea in terms of life expectancy at birth, as well as show elevated levels of infant mortality and depressed levels of patient satisfaction.  

In other words, we're not healthy and we're not happy with the system we've got.

As TIME Magazine writes "Put simply, we have the most expensive, least efficient system of any rich country on the planet.  Costs remain high on every level."

But just because this is the system that we've inherited (consider it a prototype), it doesn't mean that it has to be the system we continue to embrace going forward.  We had the fax machine for a while.  It worked, but then we developed new technologies, smarter, better, more efficient prototypes.  We can do the same thing here.

The landscape in front of us is wide open.  And we know that America's got talent, creativity and a fierce entrepreneurial spirit with which it can drive change.  It's those characteristics upon which our country was founded.

So lend your talent.  Put some skin in the game. Whatever you want to call it.

Let's bring food into the health care equation and let's figure this out.  Because we've got too much at stake, as a country, as an economy and as citizens both at home and in the global marketplace.

Sometimes something comes across your desk that is so obvious, so common-sense worthy, that it is almost too much.  

That happened this morning when an email from The Well Daily hit my inbox, offering up a safe and hugely affordable way to keep your house clean.  

Now, that's not to say that I like cleaning. I don't.  

But the message was full of information that any of our grandmothers could share, and I couldn't help but think our grandmothers might also shake their heads and ask us "Why on earth we were spending so much money on products that are so full of things that could do such harm?"  Great question, especially in light of a recent report in the New York Times which reveals that with over 80,000 chemicals in our every day products, the societal costs attributable to this toxic exposure is $76.6 billion for a single year!  

There's certainly a smarter way to spend our money. And while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something.  So maybe a money-saving tip like the one below can serve as an entry point:

Toxic cleaners: aside from the fact that they're terrible for us, our kids, our pets and the planet, they're also expensive and wasteful. We're on a mission to get back to the basics with natural cleaning products straight from the kitchen pantry. We already let you in on our love of lemon. Next up on our list of powerful old school cleaners: vinegar.

White vinegar is the superhero of natural cleaning products. Not only can it replace the majority of the products under the kitchen sink, it’s safe, completely natural and dirt cheap. And if you’re worried about the smell, don’t be—it disappears when it dries and even acts as a mild deodorizer.

Here's how to put vinegar to work in every room of the house:

• Fill a spray bottle with 1 part white vinegar and 1 part water for an all-purpose kitchen cleaner great for counters and floors.
• Prevent oven buildup and shower mildew by wiping down surfaces with a cloth and vinegar.
• Add 1/2 cup to the rinse cycle of your wash for a natural fabric softener.
• Use pure vinegar to get rid of rings in your toilet bowl.
• Mix 1 part vinegar with 4 parts water in a spray bottle for the perfect window cleaner.
• Use vinegar with a higher concentration of acetic acid for apesticide-free weed killer. (Most household vinegar is 5% acetic acid, so look for 10% or higher at the hardware store.)

Over the last few years, so many people have reached out to share their stories and their passion to protect the health of our country and have asked, "What did it take to get started?"

As I've reflected on this, it took me back to the beginning of my story.  And in all candor, that is not a place that I like to visit much.  Because in the beginning, it was isolating.   Organizations that were supposed to be looking out for the best interests of our children were having allergic reactions to me, I had been absolutely buried in the research, not sleeping, not eating, consumed by concern for the health of the American children and the health of our food supply,  and any pictures of me taken from that time reflect it.  I looked like a skeleton, as I'd been swallowed by the work and what seemed like everything that I'd believed in was stripped bare. 

But along the way, I learned one of the most valuable lessons in all of this.  You can not go it alone.  

You have to find a friend to stand beside you to cheer you on.  And about a year into my work, I connected with a bestselling author and film producer.  In February 2007, he filmed my story.  A few months later, I connected with an extraordinary woman, Deborah Koons Garcia, who produced the predecessor to Food Inc., a ground-breaking and life-changing film called The Future of Food.  To this day, both remain friends.  And then, because of these friendships, I appeared on the CBS Early Show before a national audience. And suddenly people knew my story.  

Because in that appearance in the fall of 2007 that I found the courage to share my work, my concerns over the rate at which we had introduced artificial colors, preservatives and genetically engineered ingredients into our food supply while other countries around the world were preserving theirs for the sake of their children. To love more and to fear less and to put my face on on an issue, not knowing what people might say.  My husband stood beside me in that first broadcast, and you could literally see the toll it the work had taken on me physically. To watch some of those early interviews or to look at some of the pictures almost hurts, as I was a skeletal version of the person that I am today.

And as that appearance hit, I began to hear from countless others whose stories were the same.  Those whose children suffered from food allergies, those writing books, those battling cancer.  And I realized that there is far more that unites us than divides us, and that together, we can create the changes we want to see in the health of our families and food systems.

And as I reflected on the stripping away of old beliefs and the building of new ones, it reminded me that despite what can seem like insurmountable odds, we have more strength and courage that we are ever aware of, and love that can serve as a rocket fuel. But that we need friends standing beside us.  

So for those of you who have asked, "Where do I start?" "How do I begin to make changes in my community, school, state...?" The first thing that you must do is to find a friend.  If your spouse is on board, take it for the gift that it is.  If not, look (and don't stop) until you find someone who shares your passion and concern.  

Food is an intimate and loaded issue, and people can become incredibly defensive and say extraordinary things (I've been accused of just about everything!).

But the love that you have for your friends and family will serve as a rocket fuel.  And as you begin to express your concern over the state of the health of our families (on Facebook, on a blog, in your community, to your local Congressmen), you will quickly learn that your concern is shared by countless others (like the 900,000 Americans that have sent comments to the FDA), and it is together, that we can change the dialogue and create a food system that will define our families, farmers and future in a way that makes all of us, every American, both healthy and proud.