logo

Inspiring Ideas

Next Steps for the Labeling Movement
Wednesday, November 07, 2012

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:

 

Eating Oil?
Sunday, October 21, 2012

Who knew that oil was so pervasive in our food supply?

But in light of rising fuel prices which impact everyone from farmers to families and a report out of the UN that highlights the role that industrial agriculture and its oil-based inputs like chemical fertilizers and pesticides have to do with climate change, it is important to realize exactly that...how pervasive oil is in our food supply.

As a matter of fact, every 24 hours, the US spends  $1 billion on imported oil, with food production accounting for up to 19% of our energy consumption.

As prices continue to rise at the pump, it is becoming more poignant than ever to also remember that our agricultural system and means of food production in the US is dependent on fossil fuel.

Conventional food production and distribution requires a tremendous amount of energy—one study conducted in 2000 estimated that at least ten percent of the energy used annually in the United States was consumed by the food industry. As highlighted by theDepartment of Energy, more recent studies suggest that this number is now closer to 17 percent.

• Most pesticides are petroleum-(oil) based
• Increasing numbers of food additives and colorants are petroleum-(oil) based
• All commercial fertilizers are ammonia-based and produced from natural gas
• Oil allowed for farming implements such as tractors, food storage systems such as refrigerators, and food transport systems such as trucks
• In the US, the average piece of food is transported almost 1,500 miles before it gets to your plate.

But despite the fact that Richard Heinberg, a "peak oil" scholar, said: "How dependent on oil is our food system? Enormously dependent. Fatally dependent, I would say," perhaps we should hold fast to the knowledge that we are a country that was founded by creative and courageous entrepreneurs, and that since we are all at this table together, together, we can create the changes we want to see in the health of our food system.

So where do we start?  Right where you stand...in your kitchen.

Here are six steps to reduce your family's exposure to oil in our food supply.  And remember, to take these in "baby steps", as change doesn't happen overnight (you don't potty train a kid overnight either):

  1. Eat Foods You Can Pronounce (chances are they contain fewer artificial colors, additive and dyes)
  2. Cook it once, eat it twice (recycle those noodles for salad or that chicken in a stir fry)
  3. Purchase something organic, because by law, these products are not allowed to contain these synthetic and oil-based ingredients, dyes and pesticides.
  4. Eat local when possible, as the food miles traveled for these ingredients are far shorter and require less fuel to deliver
  5. Plant something (just one thing...remember those lima beans in cups in school?)
  6. Don't make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good" (remember, none of us can do everything, but all of us can do something)

And if you think that doing one small thing can't make a difference, remember to focus on progress not perfection.

Because together, we can affect remarkable change.

Thoughts on Love and Marriage
Thursday, August 16, 2012

This week, my husband and I celebrated fifteen years of marriage.

Our story isn’t all that different to a lot of stories out there.  It is one of hope, dreams, hard work, inspiration, sacrifice, heartache and perseverance. 

It is the story of our lives, and the chapters that unfold, the expectations and the unexpected and how we choose to navigate them. 

Yet when we were standing at that altar, fifteen years ago, taking a vow “for better or worse, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health,” we really had no way of knowing all of the details of what we were signing up for.  Looking back, it’s probably a blessing in disguise, as we made that blanket promise, to look after each other, no matter what the circumstances. 

Because what we have learned so far is that life is going to throw circumstances at you that you could never foresee.  Some will be beautiful, the blessings of a child, the love of friends, and some come in the form of health challenges - the loss of a child, a cancer or autism diagnosis - or in other ways -  the loss of a job or trustworthiness of a loved one.

Those times are hard. And when they have hit over the years, there are words that come to me that a colleague said just before our wedding:

“Your happiness in life will be determined by how you handle the curve balls.”

It is true.  Life throws curve balls, some hard, others soft.  But the older we get, the more I realize how true those words are.

A lot has changed in the last few years. I have changed.  My family has had to share me with the work that I love and the very special people that I love that are part of it.   It has not always been easy.  This passion, at times, felt to them like an affair of the heart, taking me away.  They feared that there might be less love for them, as my love for the work and the the incredible people that are part of it has grown.  But as we worked through it, we learned that love creates love - there is a generosity of the soul.  

There have been moments of deep grief and moments of unbridled hope, and through the very hard ones, when even music, which has been a constant companion my entire life, offered no solace, we always had each other.  Early on in my work, during a period of intense isolation, I once asked my husband, “Why do you believe in me?”

“Because you’ve never given me any reason not to,” he said. 

And so as we enter into the next fifteen years of our marriage, strengthened and tested by what we have learned in our first fifteen, I could not help but reflect when I saw a sign on a trail head we were hiking over the weekend. 

The sign read: “Experts Only!” “Ripsaw” and “Cinch.” It was an indicator for a double black diamond ski slope ahead and a gentle green run, but I could not help but think that the same could be said of marriage.  It can be both the gentle greens and the double black diamonds.  To a certain extent you can choose your slope, but you may also find yourself in unchartered territory, requiring a love, faith and trust in both yourself and in your partner, so that you can navigate the terrain together, no matter what the conditions may be.

Because in life, there will always be moments of fear.  But fear can not coexist with love. It is a defense mechanism that protects the ego, it is also the defense mechanism that shields the heart.  It is learned and builds walls. 

And it is in deconstructing those walls around ourselves and around the heart, in unlearning fear, that we find love.  In others and in ourselves.   


Jamie Oliver Gives the 101 on "Pink Slime"
Saturday, March 10, 2012
If you are just tuning in to this "pink slime" debate, and the ingredients now being used in our National School Lunch Program, there is no better place to start than with Jamie Oliver's television show that gives a "Pink Slime 101". 

Note: this is extremely hard to watch if you have children in the school lunch program as most of us do, but knowledge is power. 

And together, with the help of our AllergyKids' Food Hero, Bettina Siegel who has launched an online petition to the USDA that has already garnered over 110,000 signatures in just over 4 days, as parents and citizens, we can make our voices heard so that we have the information that we need to protect the health of our children.

   

To learn more, please read The Lunch Tray's Letter to the USDA
5 Tools to Help You Save When You Shop
Friday, March 09, 2012

Like most parents who are trying to feed picky eaters on a limited budget with limited time, I am grateful for any support that I can get.  So when my friend, Ken Cook, the founder of the Environmental Working Group, shared the tips that he uses to feed his family clean and healthy food on a budget, I was thankful.  His team of scientists have done the research for us, and the tips are smart, savvy, and time and money-saving.

EWG's Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce. I always check it when trying to decide which fruits and vegetables to buy organic and which are OK to buy conventional. And keep your eyes open - they will be updating this popular guide with new data soon.

The Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food compass just released by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This interactive map shows where to find USDA-supported projects in your area that support local food.

The Label Decoder in EWG's Meat Eater's Guide to Climate Change + Health. EWG included this handy explainer on how to read labels on meat and dairy products. From free-range to lean, it helps you know what you're buying.

Organic vs. Natural. What's the difference between natural and organic anyway? Our friends at The Organic Center have published this handy tip sheet to help us out on that one.

EWG's Sugar in Children's Cereal Report. In researching this report, published in December, EWG discovered that many popular cereals have more sugar than Twinkies or chocolate chip cookies. When I'm looking for an alternative breakfast choice, I check out the recipes in EWG's Five Healthy Breakfast Tips.

Now, I know it's a juggling act, so I always remind myself not to make "the perfect" the enemy of "the good", and to do the best I can, with the resources and time that I have, remembering that this is about progress, not perfection.


73 Precent Want Them Banned (And You May Not Know You're Eating Them)
Wednesday, March 07, 2012

As the United States wrestles over whether or not genetically engineered foods should be labeled (as they have been in other countries since their introduction in the 1990s), a new report shows that 73% of those polled think that the planting of these same ingredients should be banned altogether in the European Union.

So what gives?  Why would some countries want to ban food crops and the ingredients derived from them while eaters in the United States haven't even been told these things were going into our food supply in the first place?  

Introduced into our food in the 1990s, genetically engineered ingredients were the product of a new technology used in our food and agricultural systems, a technology that allows crops to withstand increasing doses of toxic and controversial weedkillers or to actually enable crops like corn to synthesize (and make internally within the plant) their very own insecticides.

Technology can be pretty amazing, right?  So instead of spraying insecticides across corn fields, biotech scientists working for big chemical companies figured out how to engineer those insecticides straight into the plant itself, so that it can release them as it grows.  Great business model if you're a chemical company.  But what about the consumer?  And why didn't we label these things here?

Well, if the countries in Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, about 40 countries around the world, are any indicator, the consumers, when they saw these things on the label, decided to opt out.  So much so that France doesn't really even want them planted in their soil.  And now a poll shows 73% don't want them planted in the European Union.

So how did we miss this dialogue here in the United States?  Why weren't we given this same right when this new technology and these ingredients were introduced without labels.  There was no "Intel Inside" kind of label.  We simply weren't given the right to know or the right to choose the way consumers in other developed countries were.

So why are the chemical companies urging farmers to grow crops that other countries don't want?  You don't have to look far to find the answer.  With shareholders to report to, the buck stops here.  In the United States, on our farms.  It's where the bottom line hits.

But what's fascinating is that in conversations with farmers (and if you've never sat down with one, you should, as most of them have families that have been feeding our families and country for generations), you will quickly learn that this new operating system introduced on the farm, which enable the use of these toxic weedkillers, doesn't seem to be working out as planned.  Weeds have supersized themselves, building immunity to these chemicals, and now farmers are looking for other options.

If the recent poll is any indicator, it looks like that might be a smart business move as a growing number of countries around the world continue to opt out of these genetically engineered crops.  Sure, the chemical companies pushing these products don't want that to happen, they'd sell discounted seeds to show a successful adoption rate just the way a tech start up gives away its product in the early stages, too.  But if this poll is any indicator, the 'opt-out' might be happening anyway.


Want to learn more, please visit Just Label It.

In the Beginning
Saturday, March 03, 2012

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.

Finding Your Voice
Thursday, February 23, 2012

Last year, I was asked to give a presentation.  I was totally intimidated before I took the stage, and the week prior I had wanted to call the group organizing the event and cancel, telling them that my kids needed me, my husband needed me, anything to get me out of having to head out of town to speak before what was going to be the biggest audience I'd seen.  

But I leaned into it.  

Because I have learned over the last several years that when fear hits, that is exactly where you should probably be, because it is leaning into that fear, inspired by love, that you will grow.

And so rather than quit, I practiced.  I couldn't screw up the words, it was my story, we had lived every moment of it.  So I set the timer in the kitchen on the microwave oven for 18 minutes - the time I'd been allotted for the talk - and I practiced.

And when the morning of the presentation came, I said a little prayer, "Let my heart speak" and took the stage.  And in doing so, let love conquer fear. 

So when I recently read an article about ten tips you can take to be an effective public speaker, I laughed.  It was about 365 days too late.  

I got some of it right, some of it wrong, but in the end, I did something.  And I invite you to do the same.  Dare to find your voice, to change the dialogue, to start a conversation, to believe in your ability to affect change, because what you may realize is that it will inspire others to do the same. 

Since it's never too late to get started, here is a list of the Top Ten Secrets of Today's Most Successful Speakers:

1. Research — Prepare carefully by doing your research before you even attempt to write your speech. Who is your audience? What are your “take aways” — the most important things you want them to walk away having learned from you? The more you know about your audience as well as your subject, the more confident you’ll feel when you are in front of them.

2. Make clear notes — Write down your entire speech, then pick out the main areas you’ve covered. Jot them down as bullet-points, words or phrases on 3″ X 5″ cards to prompt you during your speech. Use different colors to separate your points, in case you lose your place or work them into your PowerPoint presentation.

3. Practice thoroughly — Practice giving your talk into a recorder and use a timer to watch your minute marks. Surprisingly, having a recorder running puts pressure on you to know your material. From here, you can graduate to practicing in front of others. Practice using tools such as your PowerPoint clicker or laser pointer.

4. Visit the venue beforehand — Make an advance visit to where you’ll be speaking, even if you can only do this an hour beforehand. Stand exactly where you will be giving your speech to get a feel for the space. Also, ensure you get a sound check beforehand if there is a sound engineer provided for you.

5. Dress to stand out from the audience — If the backdrop is dark on stage, make sure you wear light colors. If the backdrop is light on stage, wear a contrasting color or darker shade. Never wear black on top, although black pants with a light or colored top works well. If you wear a dress, pick one with a belt, so you can clip the wireless mic transmitter to it! (Otherwise, in a pinch, I have clipped my mic pack to my bra strap.)

6. Breathe deeply – Take deep breaths before you go on stage. A minute or so of calm, deep breaths will slow your heart rate, increase your oxygen levels, and ground you nicely to give a calm, confident performance.

7. Think positively — If you’ve rehearsed and prepared adequately, there is no reason not to believe in yourself. Visualize no other outcome but being a raging success. Think how much the audience will like you, and how good you will feel after you’ve done it!

8. Don’t rush — Speak slowly to ensure you don’t trip over your words, and don’t rush to finish points. Ideally, set timings in your speech notes, so you know if you are going too fast or too slowly as you go along. Timing checks in your notes will help you sail along at a comfortable, relaxed speed.

9. Show your passion! — Feed off the passion you have for your subject. This will engage your audience’s attention. Let your voice get louder for some points and softer for others; have some variance in your presentation as far as your sound dynamics.

10. Be yourself and have fun – Audiences may forget what you say, but they will remember what you make them feel. And no one will know that you “messed up” but you. So go for it!


These tips were excerpted from the website of self-made entrepreneur and Inc. 500-ranked CEO Ali Brown who teaches women around the world how to start and grow profitable businesses that make a positive impact. Get her FREE weekly articles and advice at www.AliBrown.com.  


Love Like There's No Tomorrow
Monday, February 20, 2012

Intense.  It's the only word to describe today.  

The weekend had been full of revelations about funding ties between non-profits and industry, an issue close to my heart given what I'd learned in the food allergy world back in 2006.  And quite honestly, I began to wonder, given the enormous wealth, vested interests and interplay between industry and non-profits, if we even stood a chance at open and fair science.  

And then I had an email in my inbox from a mother of three battling breast cancer.  Then another from a 25 year old about to enter the army, more from cancer survivors and then one from an EPA scientist worried about the foods that his kids are eating.

His stopped me in my tracks.

And once again, I reflected on the fact that there is so much more that unites us than divides us.  And the common thread that weaves our stories together is the love that we have for those that we care about.  It's universal.  It's a rocket fuel. It makes the impossible possible. It gives us permission to lend our talents. 

And it is our collective talents that will create the change we want to see in the world.