Did you know that your drink might contain an ingredient that is not used in beverages in 100 countries around the world?

Brominated vegetable oil (also known as “BVO”) is found in sports drinks and citrus-flavored sodas.  It is a chemical that keeps two liquids mixed together.  It acts as a binding agent, also known as an emulsifier, and it prevents the flavoring and other ingredients found in our drinks from separating and floating to the surface.

It makes sense , on one level, as we don’t want our drinks to look like a separated salad dressing with ingredients floating to the top!  But this appearance might come with a hidden side effect.  According to SHAPE magazine and nutritionist Mira Calton and her husband Jayson Calton, Ph.D., “Because it competes with iodine for receptor sites in the body, elevated levels of the stuff may lead to thyroid issues, such as hypothyroidism, autoimmune disease, and cancer,” Calton says. As if that wasn’t scary enough, BVO's main ingredient, bromine, is a chemical that is considered toxic. It's been linked to all kind of health concerns, including organ system damage, birth defects, schizophrenia, and hearing loss, which explains why it's been removed or banned from food and drinks in more than 100 countries.

These health concerns and the fact that so many countries have removed BVO from their beverages was so concerning to one 15 year old that she launched an online petition that landed her in the New York Times in which she called for the removal of this ingredient from American beverages, as it’s been removed from products around the world.

Want to opt out of brominated vegetable oil here in the United States? Skip the sports drinks and choose water.  And if you’re filling up your cup at the soda fountain, instead of the lemon-lime and citrus flavored drinks, consider drinking something else.

Remember, while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something.  Focus on progress not perfection, and do what you can, where you are with what you have, remembering not to make “the perfect” the enemy of “the good.”

 Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth or on Facebook.

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

 

If you eat and pay taxes, you might want to know about “The Farm Bill.”

Remember the bailout that we funded for the banks?  Well, the same thing is happening in our food system.

And today, seventy leading chefs, authors, food policy experts, nutritionists, CEOs, and environment and health organizations sent an open letter to Members of Congress urging lawmakers to modernize the Farm Bill and make nutritious and healthy foods more affordable to all Americans.

According to a July 2011 poll , 78% of Americans want healthy food to be more affordable.  Not surprising when you consider the rates of diseases like diabetes, asthma and cancer that we are seeing in the health of our loved ones.

If you are one of the countless Americans who has ever stopped to wonder why fresh fruit is so expensive and processed and packaged food is so cheap, it’s largely because of the “Farm Bill” and the way that we currently allocate our taxpayer resources in our national food budget.

How it stands right now is that as taxpayers, we are writing checks and that money is being used as taxpayer funded payments called “subsidies” to support the growing of corn and soy, crops used to make our processed foods. Few of the dollars that we send in are used to support other foods in any meaningful way.  In other words, our current system keeps the foods that use these ingredients, mainly the cheap processed foods, cheap, while making everything else seem expensive.

Can you imagine if  instead of funding the junk food, we funded other foods?  Like apples and carrots for example?  We could afford to carry them in schools, at home and in hospitals. Our food companies would use more of them in their products, as they’d be cheaper to source, and we would benefit from the nutritional differences.

Sound too good to be true?  It is, right now.

And some might argue (and they do) that we need our current subsidy system to avoid mass starvation.  How else are we going to feed the world?  But interestingly, just this week, according to the World Health Organization and Business Week, there is so much extra food floating around the globe that not only is it increasing rates of obesity, but we also waste a third of what is produced, it’s simply thrown away. As a result, obesity is a far greater threat facing the globe than starvation, and malnutrition is affecting both.

In other words, we have subsidized a food system that is making us fat, sick and undernourished.

Some food corporations and production groups, especially those who grow soy and corn believe that these handouts are necessary to guarantee stable prices, a food supply and to protect food crops from steep price declines.  Apparently, they may not be aware that the global banks and Wall Street can wreak havoc on food prices by trading what are known as “collateralized commodity obligations” in which they bundle up a whole bunch of these assets in order to profit off of the trades. But how could they be aware of these derivatives?  They are hardly regulated.

But back to the "Farm Bill," the bill would also provide an estimated $9 billion a year to continue a long-standing insurance program that benefits only farmers of commodity crops.  In other words, farmers are paid to buy and grow corn and soy.  They won’t get the same level of insurance if they grow something else, like apples, carrots or tomatoes.  In the current system, with the subsidies and insurance promises, the system only pays farmers to keep growing corn and soy crops.  There is no safety net if they choose to grow anything else.  Who can blame them?  Times are tough.

Which is why today’s letter to Congress is so important.  It calls for an end to this lopsided allocation of taxpayer resources and our lopsided funding of the food system and asks for an end to the bailout of Big Ag that allocates $140 billion to companies engineering corn and soybean seeds from which so many of the ingredients now found in our fake, fast and processed foods are derived.  Right now, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “about one-third of the subsidies awarded under (last year’s) program went to just 4% of farmers.”

According to the letter sent to Congress today, Americans "are deeply concerned that it would continue to give away subsidies worth tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to the largest commodity crop growers, insurance companies, and agribusinesses even as it drastically underfunds programs to promote the health and food security of all Americans”.

Mass starvation?  It seems that mass malnutrition in an increasingly obese world in which too much food is being produced, thrown away and wasted seems more likely.

It also seems that the Farm Bill, this taxpayer funded piece of legislation, “is out of step with the nation’s priorities and what the American public expects and wants from our food and farm policy.”

And while this funding of the status quo might be good for the chemical companies and for those whose products have to be purchased  by our nation’s farmers in order to grow these two crops, it doesn’t seem to be benefiting the millions of stakeholders in the food supply, nor the farmers themselves, nor the growing number of obese and overweight Americans who rely on cheap, processed foods to feed their families in quite the same way.

A better "Farm Bill" would fund a diverse and healthy food system, especially in light of the fact that a growing number of us and our national economy are being impacted by obesity, diabetes, cancer, allergies and autism, diseases and conditions that are increasingly being shown to have a link to diet and nutrition.

So while you may not have heard of the “Farm Bill” until recently, this Senate bill is arguably one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will consider this year, and it is set to go to the floor in the coming week.

And if you haven’t heard about it, you’re not alone.  But “unless we – meaning all of us who eat and pay taxes – demand Congress fundamentally change the way it writes the next farm bill, I can guarantee the interests of agribusiness will once again come out on top,” said Ken Cook, president and co-founder of EWG. “We have a real opportunity to compel members of Congress to work on behalf of our health and the environment if they hear from all of us now.  Eaters - it's time to get in the game."

Let’s go, America.  Game on.

CALL TO ACTION: The Farm Bill—the most important legislation when it comes to your food- is about to be voted on in the US Senate. Now is the time to stand up and fix our broken food system. Together, we can create a food system and a Farm Bill that is fairer, healthier and more sustainable for all Americans http://tiny.cc/ff26ew

 

 

 

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. 

Today, investors joined the Food Revolution as Annie’s Homegrown, a little mac and cheese company that makes cheddar bunnies, went public.

Having worked as a financial analyst on a team that included several dads, there was not a doubt in my mind that the IPO was going to be a success (as I discussed back in this December 2011 interview). 

Little did I know by how much.  Annie’s initially hoped to price their shares between $14 and $16, but as interest continued to grow, it became clear that investors were as hungry for change as consumers, and Annie’s raised their offering price and ended up pricing above the range at $19 per share and closing up 89% on its opening day.

As Annie’s made its way around Wall Street, it set a precedent in the food industry, not only because it was started by a mom who wanted a healthier version of mac and cheese for her kids but also as a public food company, full of values and void of junk, promising to do good and do well.

And as we are quickly learning, it can’t come a moment too soon.  Because while other countries have chosen opt out of things like high fructose corn syrup, artificial growth hormones, artificial food dyes derived from petrochemicals and genetically engineered ingredients into their food supplies – particularly in the foods fed to children – they are still used in our products here.

The reason?  Because mounting scientific evidence (not the industry-funded kind used for marketing purposes) shows that these ingredients might play a role in conditions like hyperactivity, cancer and allergies.

But even beyond the double standard, what is truly jaw-dropping is the fact that our American corporations formulate their products differently for eaters in other countries.

We are lucky to have Annie’s here in the United States, adhering to this level of food production that focuses on maximizing health and minimizing harm, because here is a look at just how different a box of mac and cheese can be:

U.K. Version of Mac & Cheese:

Macaroni (Durum Wheat Semolina), Cheese (10%), Whey Powder (from milk), Lactose, Salt, Emulsifying Salts (E339, E341), Colours (Paprika Extract, Beta-Carotene)

U.S. Version of Mac & Cheese:

Enriched Macaroni Product (wheat flour, niacin, ferrous sulfate (iron), thiamin mononitrate (vitamin B1), riboflavin (vitamin B12), riboflavin (vitamin B2), folic acid), Cheese Sauce Mix (whey, modified food starch, whey protein concentrate, Cheddar Cheese (milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes), Granular Cheese (milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes), Salt, Calcium Carbonate, Potassium Cloride, Contains Less Than 2% of Parmesan Cheese (part-skim milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes, dried buttermilk, sodium tripolyphosphate, blue cheese (milk, cheese culture, salt, enzymes), Sodium Phosphate, Medium Chain Triglycerides, Cream, Citric Acid, Lactic Acid, Enzymes, Yellow 5, Yellow 6).

 

Source for Ingredients Lists: Kraft Macaroni and Cheese, The Cheesiest Dinner (U.S. Version), Kraft Cheesy Pasta (U.K. Version)

 

"You learn something every day if you pay attention."  ~Ray LeBlond

And that happened this morning, when in an online dialogue, a farming friend popped in, talking about his trip to DC for the "Corn Congress."

"What's a 'Corn Congress'?" I asked, never having heard the term.

To which another friend promptly chimed in that "Corn Congress" is a meeting in Washington DC of corn growers, members of the National Corn Growers Association and particularly those focused on "commercial corn."  

Sounded powerful, to me.

Since I wasn't entirely sure how they defined "commercial corn," I asked another question.

To which came the quick reply that 99.3% of the corn grown in our country is called "commercial corn" and is used for a string of alliterations, including convenience foods, colas, cows and car fuel. Only 0.7% of the corn we grow is "veggie corn", the sweet corn eaten as a veggie by humans.

Who knew?  (OK, besides Michael Pollan).  But I found those statistics fascinating, especially in light of the food and ethanol subsidies used to support the growing of these crops.  Corn subsidies in the United States, financed by taxpayer resources, totaled $77.1 billion from 1995-2010.  

Corn has earned the title "cash crop"for a reason, it appears, and as it is traded on the Chicago Board of Trade and bundled into derivative trades on the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index, you can't help but wonder if Big Ag is the fuel that will rival Big Oil.

It is certainly food for thought.