A just-released study shows that animals found in the US food supply are harmed by the consumption of feed containing genetically modified corn and soy.

It’s enough to make anyone paying attention to the genetically modified food debate sit up and take notice.

And it did, but it also brought another issue to light: the growing influence that funding ties are having over scientific studies and the journals they are published in. 

The research results were striking, showing that the weight of the uterus in pigs fed genetically modified foods was on average 25% higher than in the control group of pigs. Also, the level of severe inflammation in stomachs was markedly higher in pigs fed on the genetically modified food diet.  These animals were 2.6 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation than control pigs.  While 22% of male pigs and 42% of female pigs on the genetically modified food diet had this condition, when these pigs were compared to pigs on the control diet, it was found that male pigs were actually more strongly affected.  While female pigs were 2.2 times more likely to get severe stomach inflammation when on the GM diet, males were 4 times more likely. 

According to the researchers, these findings are both biologically significant and statistically significant. The research was conducted by collaborating investigators from two continents and published in the peer-reviewed Journal of Organic Systems.

Yes, the Journal of Organic Systems.  A look at the journal’s sponsors shows that the Organic Federation of Australia sponsors the journal.

Why is this important? Journals and their editors have a lot of power in science – power that provides opportunities for abuse. The life science industry knows this, and has increasingly moved to influence and control science publishing.  In 2009, the scientific publishing giant Elsevier was found to have invented an entire medical journal, complete with editorial board, in order to publish papers promoting the products of the pharmaceutical manufacturer Merck.

And in early 2013 the scientific journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology editorial board acquired a new “Associate Editor for biotechnology”, Richard E. Goodman. According to Independent Science News, Richard E. Goodman is professor at the Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, University of Nebraska. But he is also a former Monsanto employee, the company whose products were recently challenged in a scientific study published in this journal, who worked for the company between 1997 and 2004. While at Monsanto he assessed the allergenicity of the company’s GM crops and published papers on its behalf on allergenicity and safety issues relating to GM food (Goodman and Leach 2004).

So with eyes wide open to how these journals are being used, what did the pig study in the Organic journal find? The feeding study lasted more than five months and was conducted in the US.  168 newly-weaned pigs in a commercial piggery were fed either a typical diet incorporating GM soy and corn (2), or else (in the control group) an equivalent non-GM diet.  The pigs were reared under identical housing and feeding conditions.  They were slaughtered over 5 months later, at their usual slaughter age, after eating the diets for their entire commercial lifespan.  They were then autopsied by qualified veterinarians who worked “blind” - they were not informed which pigs were fed on the GM diet and which were from the control group. The research was undertaken because farmers have for some years been reporting reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn (3). 

Farmers have seen a reduced ability to conceive and higher rates of miscarriage in piggeries where sows have been fed on a GM diet, and a reduction in the number of piglets born if boars were used for conception rather than artificial insemination.  There is also evidence of a higher rates of intestinal problems in pigs fed a GM diet, including inflammation of the stomach and small intestine, stomach ulcers, a thinning of intestinal walls and an increase in haemorrhagic bowel disease, where a pig can rapidly “bleed-out” from its bowel and die. The new study lends scientific credibility to anecdotal evidence from farmers and veterinarians, who have for some years reported reproductive and digestive problems in pigs fed on a diet containing GM soy and corn. The study seemed significant for four reasons:

1. Results were found in real on-farm conditions, not in a laboratory
2. Pigs were used and pigs end up in our food supply.
3. Pigs have a similar digestive system to people
4. The animals were fed a mixture of crops that contained three genetically modified genes and genetically modified proteins, relatively new to the food supply.

No food regulator anywhere in the world requires a safety assessment for the possible toxic effects of mixtures. Regulators simply assume that they can’t happen.

In other words, we are eating these foods in combination without an understanding of what their synergistic toxicity might be.

The study also aimed to address the concern of farmers who had found increased production costs and escalating antibiotic use when feeding genetically modified food crops to their animals.

But if these foods were introduced into our food supply in the 1990s, why are we only just now conducting the studies?  Shouldn’t they have been conducted before these products came to market? And what is the concern?

According to Michael Hansen, PhD, a senior scientist at the Consumers Union,  in testimony on H1936, an Act relative to Genetically Engineered Food; H2037, an Act to establish guidelines for genetically engineered food; and H2093, an Act relative to the labeling of food before the Joint Committee on Public Health in Boston, MA, said, “There is global agreement that genetic engineering is different than conventional breeding and that safety assessments should be completed for all GE foods prior to marketing.  The human safety problems that may arise include introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins, and changes in nutrition.  There may also be unintended effects.”

So how did the US, the FDA, allow these ingredients into our food supply while the rest of the world exercised such precaution?  And while correlation is not causation, does it explain the 400% increase we have seen in the number of children with allergies?

Without labels on these foods, there is no way to know.

The United States, unlike all other developed countries, does not require safety testing for genetically modified plants now found in our food supply (although it does require an assessment for genetically modified animals).  The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) original policy on genetically engineered (or GM, for genetically modified) plants, developed more than twenty years ago,[1] says that companies may go through a “voluntary safety consultation.”  But, in the end, FDA says it is up to the companies to determine safety of any GE food.  To date, there have been some 97 “voluntary safety consultations.”

But that was twenty years ago.  So what has happened lately?

It turns out that just last June, the American Medical Association’s House on Delegates voted to change its policy on “bioengineered” foods to one that states:  “Our AMA supports mandatory pre-market systematic safety assessments of bioengineered foods and encourages: (a) development and validation of additional techniques for the detection and/or assessment of unintended effects; (b) continued use of methods to detect substantive changes in nutrient or toxicant levels in bioengineered foods as part of a substantial equivalence evaluation; (c) development and use of alternative transformation technologies to avoid utilization of antibiotic resistance markers that code for clinically relevant antibiotics, where feasible; and (d) that priority should be given to basic research in food allergenicity to support the development of improved methods for identifying potential allergens.”[2]

According to Hansen’s testimony, one big problem with safety assessments of genetically modified plants now found in our food supply is that there have been virtually no long-term animal feeding studies, with most feeding studies being of 90 days or shorter.  A carefully designed meta-analysis of 19 published studies involving mammals fed this new, genetically modified corn or soy found damage in the kidney, liver and bone marrow, which could be potential indicators for the onset of chronic diseases.[3]  However, no animal tests are obligatory for any of the genetically modified plants now found in our food supply cultivated on a large scale in the US.

Do other countries do it this way?  Or are we the only ones who take the approach: Shoot first, ask questions later?

It looks like we are one of the only developed countries to do it this way, as over 60 countries around the world either banned or labeled these ingredients in the food supply so that consumers can make an informed choice.

Both the French Food Safety Agency (ANSES) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) have concluded that such long-term safety assessment should be done on genetically modified foods.

So where are those studies? A long-term (two year) feeding study published in October, 2012 found that females rats fed the genetically modified corn died 2-3 times more quickly, and developed mammary tumors more often than controls who ate non-GE corn, while male rats fed the GE corn have liver and kidney problems at higher rate than controls, and more large tumors than rats fed non-GE corn.[4]

The study was terrible PR for the chemical and biotech industries whose shareholders rely on these products to drive profitability and was quickly criticized by the scientific community for the way in which the study was conducted. The design of the study had flaws, but perhaps it’s most significant contribution to this dialogue was that it raised the awareness of how few long-term independent studies have been conducted.

The result? It had countries around the world calling for more independent studies and science.

With the news of the US pig study, now we have another one.

The sample size was not small.  This one involved US pigs fed a combination of genetically modified corn and genetically modified soy, fed to animals in our food supply and used in our processed foods, has found evidence of adverse health effects.  This study involved a large sample size (168 pigs) of pigs raised in a commercial US piggery, and fed commercially available soy and corn for 22.7 weeks (the normal lifespan of commercial pig from weaning to slaughter) was designed “to compare the effects of eating either a mixed genetically modified soy and genetically modified corn diet, or an equivalent diet with non- genetically modified ingredients.”[5]  The study found that the uteri of genetically modified food-fed pigs was significantly larger (weighed 25% more) than those non- genetically modified food-fed pigs.  In addition, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was more than 2.5-fold higher, on average, for genetically modified food -fed pigs compared to non- genetically modified food -fed pigs (32% vs 12%, respectively).

It hit the males harder. For male pigs, the rate of severe stomach inflammation was four times higher for genetically modified food -fed males to non- genetically modified food fed males, and for females, the rate was more than 2-fold higher.  As the authors conclude “The results indicate that it would be prudent for genetically modified crops that are destined for human food and animal feed, including stacked genetically modified crops, to undergo long-term animal feeding studies preferably before commercial planting, particularly for toxicological and reproductive effects.”[6]

You would think that this had already happened before such widespread introduction into the US food supply without so much as a label. But it hasn’t, so scientists here in the US, as well as farmers, join scientists around the world calling for more independent, long-term studies.

And we need them, because a further look into this study by Mark Lynas, a climate change author who recently became an advocate for these products suggests that “if you look at the data they present (and the data presentation is at least a step better than Seralini) there are obvious problems. Clearly all the animals were in very poor health – weaner mortality is reported as 13% and 14% in GM-fed and non-GM fed groups, which they claim is “within expected rates for US commercial piggeries”, a vague statement intended to justify what seem to have been inadequate husbandry standards.

This picture is even more stark in the data presented in Table 3. 15% of non-GM fed pigs had heart abnormalities, while only 6% of GM-fed pigs did so.

He highlights that close to 60% of both sets of pigs were suffering from pneumonia at the time of slaughter, calling the study “propaganda dressed up as science.”

The problem is that this is increasingly the case on both sides of the GMO aisle, with conflicts of interests on both sides of the issue.

There is virtually no independent safety testing of these crops in the US due to intellectual property right problems.  When farmers buy genetically modified seed in the US (seeds that have been hardwired to withstand increasing doses of the chemicals sold by the company engineering them), they invariably must sign a product stewardship agreement which forbids them from giving such seeds to researchers.[7]  Since researchers must get permission from the biotech companies before they can do research, the result is a scarcity of independent research.  Scientists have even been threatened with legal action if they revealed information obtained via freedom-of-information.[8]

In early 2009 26 public sector scientists in the US took the unprecedented step of writing to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) protesting that “as a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.”[9]  As a result, the editors of Scientific American published a perspective stating that “we also believe food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny. Agricultural technology companies should therefore immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements.”  We concur and believe that only truly independent safety tests will give us an answer about the safety of genetically modified foods.  In the meantime, it’s crucial that genetically modified foods be labeled, so that if people experience negative effects, they and their doctors can identify them.

Correlation is not causation, but with the skyrocketing rates of food allergies now seen in the US population, studies showing an increased risk of developing allergies after moving to the United States and the fact that few independent, long-term studies have been conducted due to the intellectual property protections enjoyed by these companies, it’s not only consumers who have a basic right to know what they are eating but parents who also have a basic right to know what is in the foods they are feeding their children.

To learn how to get involved with the labeling of genetically engineered foods in the United States, please visit Just Label It.  

Follow Robyn on Twitter @unhealthytruth and on Facebook.  She is a former financial analyst and author.

Fifteen year ago, if someone had suggested that I'd be writing this column, I'd have asked what planet they were on.

I was working as a financial analyst that covered the food industry.  My day to day consisted of meeting with management teams, taking factory and store tours and cranking out reports on companies like Kroger, Safeway, Costco and Whole Foods.  I wasn't a foodie, and I couldn't cook.

My job included crunching the numbers, learning business models and evaluating the costs of production and distribution of our food supply.

Thank goodness.

Because today, that experience has served a greater purpose: the ability to look at the current state of our food system, the financial engineering of the science behind it and the economically motivated decisions that food industry executives make to meet their fiduciary duty to drive shareholder return and sheds light on how these decision are affecting the health of our families.

And it's becoming increasingly obvious that we've got a broken economic model at work in our food system.  Farmers are rewarded with taxpayer funded resources called subsidies for growing crops in a chemically-intensive, genetically and financially engineered kind of way to drive shareholder return for the chemical companies.  While on the other hand, farmers that are growing things organically, which means by law without the use of synthetic pesticides and crops genetically engineered to require increasing doses of toxic weed killer, have to pay fees to prove that their crops are safe, then fees to label those crops with the "USDA Organic" seal and then they don't receive the same crop insurance and marketing assistance programs that the other farmers do.

Add to that the fact that American companies formulate their products one way for eaters over seas, without the use of artificial colors, genetically engineered ingredients, high fructose corn syrup, and it's enough to get anyone going.  But the fact of the matter is that what we have to label as "organic food" here in the United States is more or less called "food" in other countries.  Because overseas, it's the products that contain all of the novel ingredients like, genetically engineered ones, that have to be labeled.

So what's a consumer to do?  Learn the Big 8.  These are the ingredients which, by law and according to our very own United States Department of Agriculture, are not allowed into the production of foods that are made organically:

In a world in which we are constantly worried about the health of our families, the stability of our jobs, paying the mortgage and all of life's responsibilities, the simple act of trying to eat healthy often becomes a challenge.

Not to mention that if your family is anything like mine, then you've most likely got some picky eaters, limited time and a limited budget with which to pull all of this off in a world of soaring food prices.

All of this concern, on top of the recent announcement by Nestle that genetically engineered foods,  crops that have been engineered using biotechnology to withstand increasing doses of chemicals sold by the chemical industry, may not be "the answer" that the food industry needs to feeding the world.  

So what's an eater to do?  Especially those worried about allergies, cancer or diabetes here in the United States, one of the few developed country that never labeled these genetically engineered ingredients hardwired for chemicals in the first place?  Thankfully, there is a lot.  And these tips are for everyone, not just words for the "well-nourished who can afford to shop at Whole Foods," because clean and safe food should not be a function of zip code or socioeconomic status, it is a fundamental human right.

Access to food, labeled to disclose allergens, additives, genetically engineered ingredients & chemicals used on them, is a human right that should be afforded all Americans as it is to eaters in other countries, especially in light of cancer statistics that suggest 41% of Americans are expected to get cancer in our lifetimes.

• Go Orgo-Generic. Major grocery store chains like Safeway and Kroger, and big box food retailers like Costco and even Wal-Mart, now carry their own organic foods. And all foods labeled "USDA organic" are created equal, no matter where you find them. No need to upscale your grocery store when Wal-Mart gets it done.


• Buy Frozen. Frozen foods (like strawberries and fish) are cheaper than those that are delivered fresh. So if the prices on fresh produce are eye-popping, cruise on over to the frozen food aisle for a discount.


• Eat with the Season. Retrain your taste buds to think like your grandmother did. She didn't eat strawberries in the middle of winter. Locally grown foods are usually cheaper than those flown in from another hemisphere so if you eat with the season, you'll be eating more affordably.


• Skip the Box, Embrace the Bulk. Food that comes in boxes costs more because of the packaging costs associated with designing those pretty pictures! When you buy in bulk, you're not paying for all of the packaging, you're paying for the food which is what you want anyway. So slide on over to that bulk food aisle in Safeway and look for noodles, cereals, rice and beans in your local grocery store.


• Support the US economy and Buy Local. You can save money by becoming a member of a local farm (just like you became a member at Safeway or Costco!). How do you find a local farm, you ask? Well, thankfully, the USDA now has a list of online sites to help you find the closest farm near you.


• Comparison Shop. You wouldn't buy a car without comparison shopping, so before you even head out the door you can compare the prices of organic foods at different retailers from the safety of your own computer.


• Coupons, coupons, coupons: Organic bargains are everywhere so click on About.com's Frugal Living page where you will find All Organic Links.


• Grow One Thing. If you're as busy as we are, there's not a chance in creation that you are going to be able to feed your family off of your home-grown harvest, but you will find that growing a tomato plant can be incredibly inspiring. And it's not as intimidating as it seems. So pick one thing to grow -- you can do it (we all grew lima beans in cups as kids, right?).


• Find a Friend.It is way more fun when you share this adventure with someone else, so be sure to find a friend, share this link and get back to us with your success stories (and if you have a tip that you want to add, please post it in the comment section below!).

Good luck! And keep us posted on your success stories, because as a national family sitting down to our national dinner table, together, we can inspire, create and restore the health of our country.

So when it comes to Subway sandwiches, you'd think you were pretty safe, right?  I mean, if you had to trade up from a fast food burger and fries, that's where you might go.

But a recent article by a woman who calls herself "Food Babe" will stop you in your tracks.

In her efforts to eat "real food", she decided to ditch the processed stuff.  It was an interesting journey, to say the least, but nothing could have prepared her for what she found in her local Subway shop.

"Eat Fresh" At least, that's what she thought she was getting.

But when she decided to look under that plastic shield, she was absolutely stunned at what she found.

And while she goes into remarkable details about the chemicals that have been added to the ingredients used in those sandwiches to preserve their shelf life in the store, the details she gives about one of the ingredients in the bread are jaw-dropping.

Like many of us, we've eaten there, multiple times, and probably like "Food Babe" had absolutely no idea that this is what we were getting:

"The 9 grain wheat bread might look and smell freshly baked but it contains close to 50 ingredients including refined flours, dough conditioners, hidden MSG, refined sugars, etc.

Could bread this processed ever be real food?

Certainly not, when it includes a chemical ingredient called azodicarbonamide, which is banned as a food additive in the U.K., Europe, and Australia, and if you get caught using it in Singapore you can get up to 15 years in prison and can be fined $450,000.  Azodicarbonamide is more commonly used in the production of foamed plastics, however, it is allowed in the United States as a food additive, a flour bleaching agent, and a dough conditioner that improves elasticity of bread.

The U.K. has recognized this ingredient as a potential cause of asthma if inhaled, and advises against its use in people who have sensitivity to food dye allergies and other common allergies in food, because azodicarbonamide can exacerbate the symptoms."

It certainly makes you stop and think about what we have done to the U.S. food supply for the sake of profit margins.  And what we need to do to dig ourselves out of this chemical-heavy kitchen.  Researchers increasingly refer to certain chemicals that can promote weight gain as "obesogens."  Our grandmothers certainly didn't have that term, but now that we have it, books have been written about it, and increasing amounts of science are highlighting their effects.

Want to learn more? Then check out Food Babe's article on 100 Days of Real Food or her blog, FoodBabe.

To learn more about the chemicals going into our food supply and what you can do to protect the health of your loved ones, please visit the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

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

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)

When I first heard the term "organic" several years ago, I dismissed it. It connoted a "status" and conjured up two different images: lifestyles of the rich and famous or perhaps some alternative, hippie thing.

I was wrong.

The term "organic" actually refers to the way agricultural products are grown and processed and legally details the permitted use (or not) of certain ingredients in these foods.

The details are that the U.S. Congress adopted the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) in 1990 as part of the 1990 Farm Bill which was then followed with the National Organic Program final rule published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

The standards include a national list of approved synthetic and prohibited non-synthetic substances for organic production which means that organically produced foods also must be produced without the use of:

• antibiotics
• artificial growth hormones
• high fructose corn syrup
• artificial dyes (made from coal tar and petrochemicals)
• artificial sweeteners derived from chemicals
• synthetically created chemical pesticide and fertilizers
• genetically engineered proteins and ingredients
• sewage sludge
• irradiation

Wow, who knew that conventional, non-organic food could contain these ingredients?  Not many of us, since sewage sludge and artificial growth hormones aren't on the label.

What about cloning animals or those genetically engineered salmon, hard-wired to double their weight? Those would be considered inconsistent with organic practices, too, because of the laboratory intervention required.

In other words, what we call "organic food,"  our grandmothers would have simply called "food."  Because a lot of these new ingredients didn't exist when we were younger, having only been created in laboratories, patented and then introduced into our foods in the last few decades.

LOOK FOR THE SEAL

Products labeled “100% Organic” and carrying the “USDA Organic” seal adhere to a strict legal standard: national organic standards require that organic growers and handlers be certified by third-party state or private agencies or other organizations that are accredited by USDA. Anyone who knowingly sells or mislabels as organic a product that was not produced and handled in accordance with the regulations can be subject to a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.

WHY ORGANICS COST MORE

Admittedly, the high price of organic food can irritate anyone.  But the scrutiny that these foods undergo is enormous and expensive, driving prices at the cash register and for those producing them on the farm.  Why the costs?  Because the cost structure on our food supply offers taxpayer-funded resources called subsidies to the farmers using genetically engineered seeds and saturating crops in insecticides and weed killers, while charging the organic farmers fees to prove that their crops are safe.

That's like getting fined to wear your seat belt.

In other words, it's an un-level playing field right now.  And if we were all sitting down as a national family at our national dinner table, I don't think that any of us would want to be using our resources this way.  Wouldn't we rather have the organic food be the one that we fund, making it cheaper, more affordable and more accessible to all Americans?

But right now, it's not.  So should you choose to opt out of our conventional, chemically-intensive food production system and try something organic, you'll be joining a growing segment of the population and are not alone.

WHERE TO START?  Hop on over to Prevention, where I've written more.....

Source: The Organic Trade Association (OTA) and Organic Trade Association’s 2007 Manufacturer Survey (Because USDA does not yet do comprehensive market studies of organic sales, as it does for conventional U.S. agriculture.)

When I was asked to write the foreword for Kiwi Magazine's new cookbook, Allergy-Friendly Food for Families, I was totally intimidated.  Because in the beginning, I couldn't really cook.

But as I leaned into it, the words began to flow, and with the release of this extraordinary resource for food-sensitive and food-allergic eaters, I thought I'd share them below, because the book is an incredible tool, offering 120 gluten-free, dairy-free, nut-free, egg-free and soy-free recipes everyone will love.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The landscape of childhood has changed. In the last several years, we have seen jaw-dropping increases in the rates of allergies, autism, ADHD and asthma, earning these conditions the nickname “the 4 As” and our children the title, “Generation Rx.”

Today, it is estimated that food allergies affect at least 1 out of 17 kids under the age of three, with a study showing a doubling of the peanut allergy between 1997 and 2002. And according to an October 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there has been a 265% increase in the rate of hospitalizations related to food allergic reactions.

And as we work to protect our food allergic families from the hidden dangers that foods can present, a growing number of us are finding our ways into the kitchen in an effort to prepare foods that are both safe and nutritious for our families.

For some, like me, this may be an intimidating task. Because a few years ago, I couldn’t cook. But when my youngest child had an allergic reaction one morning over breakfast, which in all candor included blue yogurt, frozen waffles and scrambled eggs, life changed. And like so many of you, I was thrown onto this new landscape of childhood and into the kitchen in an effort to manage these food allergies.

And in learning to cook, I realized that we can take the fear out of food and make it fun.

To be honest, I’ve burnt everything from pancakes to noodles, but I’ve also learned that the most important ingredient in any recipe is love.

So I invite you to pull up a chair, flip through Allergy-Friendly Food for Families and soak in the love and wholesome goodness that are tucked into these pages. Because Allergy-Friendly Food for Families is an invaluable resources for those interested in protecting the health of their families.

And remember, while none of us can do everything, all of us can do something. So pick a recipe and get started,

Because with inspiration, practical suggestions, heartfelt instructions and real world solutions, Allergy-Friendly Food for Families is both a sound investment in the health of your family and a resource that will pay dividends for a lifetime.

You can pick up a copy of Allergy-Friendly Food for Families at Barnes and Noble, your local retailer or on Amazon. To learn more, please visit Kiwi Magazine.