I wrote this about a year ago for a friend, but as Hurricane Sandy hurls towards loved ones on the East Coast, heaving her winds, these words still ring true today.

As unprecedented storms, epic heat waves and floods continue to hit, as well as the wild temperature fluctuations, drought and scorched and infertile grounds, it is beginning to feel like our planet is sick, with a growing list of conditions.

Much like our children.

And just as our increasingly allergic and asthmatic kids have trouble breathing or are covered in dry patches, running fevers or launching inflammatory responses to things they have ingested, the Earth appears to be having an allergic reaction of her own.

We have poured fossil fuel over her skin, filled her airways with pollution and poisoned her water with everything from oil to agrichemicals to pharmaceutical drugs. 

Is it any wonder that her health appears to be failing, her waters swirling and her airways struggling?

If the Earth were a child that was this sick, what would this condition be called?

Perhaps it could be called "climate fever." She is running hot and cold with all kinds of conditions, upheavals and reactions that have the potential to cause tremendous harm.

And her "fever" affects all of us. Families, friends, farmers.  

Is it short-term? How long will it last?  

The fact of the matter is that dirty air, water, soil, climate.....they affect all of us.  They don't care what we think or what side of the aisle we are on...and neither do storms like this one.

How would we treat this Earth if she were our own sick child?   

So with the image of that child in mind, perhaps we should consider a new approach. And rather than "fight global warming" and get into "he said/she said" debates, arguing over how sick this child really is or who is to blame, perhaps it's time that we simply care for our planet as a mother might care for a child.

And rather than the routine dousing of her skin with toxic pesticides and agrichemicals, we might consider reducing her exposure to these chemicals and cultivate an approach to agriculture that isn't chemically or fossil fuel dependent, like the one recently recommended by the United Nations.

And rather than continuing to inject her with IV-like instruments used to extract the very oil and fossil fuel that is harming her, we could consider building clean energy sources and alternative energy infrastructures to give her the means with which to grow and thrive without the risk of toxicity.

We could call on our collective talents and insights to lend to the healing of her condition.

And rather than focus on what short-term economic advantages can be obtained through the extraction of her resources, recognize that we need to care for her as if our wellbeing depended on it.   

Because it does.  

And while new data shows that countries like China are contributing more than the United States and Canada combined to climate pollution, we have the extraordinary opportunity to embrace a moral authority, to design and create new energy systems that will not only serve us economically and financially but also resourcefully and sustainably for generations to come.  

A child won't remain healthy living on dirty air, dirty water or dirty food.  Our planet is no different. 

And while these changes won't happen overnight, if we leverage our collective talents, we can begin making them, because we're a pretty resilient source of renewable energy ourselves, and in the words of George Eliot, "it is never too late to be what you might have been."

Yesterday, the Food and Toxicological Journal in New York published the findings of the first-ever, long-term, toxicity study of a feeding trial that examined the effects of consuming food that has been routinely sprayed with a commonly used weedkiller and altered by genetic engineering, a technology introduced into our food supply in the last 15 years.

And it has sparked controversy.

On one side of the debate, researchers are urging precaution,  using emotional images of rats bloated with tumors, and data suggesting increased mortality, and on the other side is the industry that stands to lose not only on the corn fields but also in the courtroom and boardroom should their products be proven to cause harm.

But perhaps the most alarming thing about yesterday's announcement is the fact that while the US population has been consuming these products for the last fifteen years, without having been told or informed through mandatory labeling, this is the first long-term study that examines the toxicological impact of what eating crops, hardwired for chemicals, might do to us.

Stop and think about that.  For the first time, a long-term toxicity trial has been conducted on food we've been eating for 15 years.

So what did it find?

The study examined the long-term health impacts of consuming two products in particular related to this new technology, a genetically modified corn and the world's most popular weedkiller, a product used extensively in farming and agriculture.

 With images that are sure to draw an emotional response, the study revealed that consumption of these two products can cause tumours, multiple organ damage and lead to premature death.

Now correlation is not causation, but we are quickly learning from organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics to the President's Cancer Panel, that environmental factors are increasingly being linked to diseases like cancer.

And with rates of cancer escalating among Americans (according to the American Cancer Society 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetimes), as well as health care costs related to the disease and the economic burden it places on our country, productivity and growth, the controversial study quickly made headlines.

France's government on Wednesday asked the National Agency for Health Safety (ANSES) to investigate the finding after the corn was linked to cancer in order "to take all necessary measures to protect human and animal health," they said in a joint statement.

The relationship between our government and the corn industry has been long-standing, as evidenced in the image above.  And currently, the USDA is part owner on a major patent technology.  With the jury still out on this issue and others, like pink slime, drug use in the animals we eat and others, only time will tell if conflicts of interests will present an issue and if our government will do the same.

So what's an eater to do?

The product in question is a new type of corn, called NK603, patented at the United States Patent and Trademark Office and made by US agribusiness giant Monsanto.  The corn has been engineered to withstand Monsanto's weedkiller Roundup.

Genetically engineered seeds are a profitable product for the company, not only because these new seeds have been patented for their novel technologies, enabling the company to charge licensing fees, royalty fees and trait fees to the farmers that now use them, but also because they enable an increased adoption of other chemicals and products in the companies portfolio, like RoundUp Weedkiller, building out both revenue streams while also offering hedges to any potential slumps in sales that might occur.  Additionally, protected under patent law for their intellectual property, these patents prohibit research on the new patented seed variety, except if the farmer or researcher is willing to pay the patent holder.

It's a brilliant business model, and this generation of farmers is the first to experience this shift in the business model, where they now have to license the use of this new technology, paying royalty, trait and licensing fees much like an end-user has to license the use of Microsoft's software.

And while these genetically engineered crops are widely grown in the United States, they have been banned or are labeled in 50 countries around the world due to health and environmental concerns and the fact that until now, no long-term studies have been conducted.

And while the study showed premature deaths, tumor growth and organ damage, with sickness concentrated especially among females, according to Reuters, Monsanto spokesman said that "more than 300 peer-reviewed studies" had found that (this) food was safe.

In other words, it's a bit of a he said/she said debate.

So again, what's an eater to do?

This corn cannot be grown in Europe, so you could move there.  But since that's not an option for most of us, as the debate continues, with the industry funding studies on one side saying one thing, while independent scientists say another, we can take a cue from Harvard University, who conducted research showing the impact that funding ties can make on the outcome of scientific studies, particularly those around food and nutrition.  The study from 2007 is titled "Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles".  Its conclusion?

"Industry funding of nutrition-related scientific articles may bias conclusions in favor of sponsors' products, with potentially significant implications for public health."

The bottom line is that the bottom line matters when it comes to science.  So we can expect to see more controversy around food studies and an increasing scrutiny of funding ties between researchers, institutions, universities and corporations, especially in light of the growing number of food safety concerns and recalls.

So ask questions. Become part of the conversation.  Start a book club, a movie night.  Nothing could be more important than the health of our families.  And if our food is making us sick, we need to know about it.  Because while there will always be controversy and criticism around the methodologies used in studies, there is in this study, specifically the pictures of rats with large tumors", reported the BBC, there will always be a He said/She said debate when profits are at stake.

But we are all stakeholders in our food supply and the health of our country.  And we are increasingly cancer-ridden, with our corporations, our families and our economy weighed down by the burden of disease.  Just this week it was announced that cancer has overtaken heart disease as the No. 1 killer among Hispanics in the U.S.

We have a right to independent, long-term studies that examine what the impact of these novel technologies and manufactured chemicals might have on the health of our loved ones, our pregnancies and our children, we have the right to know how our food is produced, and like 50 countries around the world, we have the right to labels on these genetically engineered ingredients, so that as mothers, fathers, sons and daughters, as Americans, we can make an informed choice when it comes to feeding our loved ones.

This is not about an eaters right to choose organic food, which by law does not allow either of these ingredients to be used in the process, nor is this is about those with capital being able to choose to shop in a certain zip code while those without capital can not.  This is a fundamental right to human health that should be afforded to all Americans : the right to know about the ingredients that are in our food supply and if they cause harm.

And while this study is not perfect, in the face of not a single long-term human health study until now, this is the only long-term study we've got. The only one.  And we need more.

Some argue, if this study is true,"why aren't NorthAmericans dropping like flies?!".  41% of us are expected to get cancer.  Cancer is now the leading cause of death by disease in American children.  Correlation is not causation, but in light of these statistics, not knowing what is in our food supply and the long-term harm that these ingredients might cause is no longer an option.  Because while our children may only represent 30% of the population, they are 100% of our future.

To ask the FDA to label these genetically engineered foods, placing the same value on the lives of Americans that has been placed on the lives of citizens in almost 50 other countries around the world, please join www.justlabelit.org

Diet is like religion, it is not one-size-fits-all.  And as controversies swirl over how to handle the obesity epidemic, as individuals, we are quickly learning that there are a lot of little things that we can do that will make a big change in the health of families.  And that as we take these baby steps, these changes add up.

And with recent reports suggesting that even a 64 calorie reduction a day could go a long way to reducing the escalating rates of obesity, maybe it's as easy to do as ditching a can of soda.  If you need some inspiration, try the infographic below.

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