As to be expected, there was a scientist in the field of genomics aggressively speaking out against one of my TEDx talks.  It sparked an outcry that hit a resurgence again this week.

It’s not the first time that my work has come under fire, nor will it be the last as the information that I present is disruptive.  To many, it creates a cognitive dissonance - a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas, beliefs or values and can often elicit a strong emotional reaction.

And it did just that earlier this year, whena scientist at the University of Florida which houses the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences questioned one of my presentations.

So when I looked into the work of the person making the accusations, I was not surprised that he had dedicated his life to plant research and genetic engineering.  His commitment is remarkable.  I understand it, because it is that same dedication that I have to my research and work into the financial engineering and the role it can play in the integrity of science. 

That dedication, that level of commitment, is something to be honored, not slandered, as it is not without sacrifice.  And we actually went on to speak, sharing our concerns over barriers to entry that can hinder innovation, the impact that climate change is having on food supplies and other topics.  

But his criticism was that of a subject that continues to raise itself as to whether or not genetically engineered crops are safe. 

The scientific debate tends to center around whether genetically engineered crops have been “thoroughly tested,” while a debate around the financial engineering of the science continues to grow.

And with deep respect for the scientist with whom I eventually spoke and his research and dedication to his students, it is important to look at the independent science, because as the Union for Concerned Scientists states:

“Political interference in federal government science is weakening our nation's ability to respond to the complex challenges we face. Because policy makers depend on impartial research to make informed decisions, we are mobilizing scientists and citizens alike to push for reforms that will enable our leaders to fully protect our health, safety, and environment.”

In a Science Magazine in 2000, a Spanish researcher named Jose L. Domingo who later went on to write a 2007 paper, “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature,” found only seven peer reviewed papers on genetically engineered crop safety as of 2000, most of them dealing with short-term nutritional effects.  

According to Dr. Charles Benbrook, who worked in Washington, D.C. on agricultural policy, science and regulatory issues from 1979 through 1997, served for 1.5 years as the agricultural staff expert on the Council for Environmental Quality at the end of the Carter Administration, and following the election of Ronald Reagan, moved to Capitol Hill in early 1981 and was the Executive Director of the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Agriculture with jurisdiction over pesticide regulation, research, trade and foreign agricultural issues, what that means is that at the time that two genetically engineered products were approved for the food supply, there were no studies in the open scientific literature.

Let’s stop and think about that for a minute in the context of something that is more familiar. 

Can you imagine if a medical device or a new pharmaceutical drug were introduced with no studies in the open scientific literature for public review?  Or if a car was introduced onto the highway in the same manner?

The concern is shared by the National Academy of Sciences in the paper, Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences, "As with all other technologies for genetic modification, they also carry the potential for introducing unintended compositional changes that may have adverse effects on human health."

Furthermore, according to Benbook, as of 2007 and Domingo's more recent and comprehensive review, a “Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: A Review of the Published Literature", there are still no more than about ten studies assessing the toxicological impact of genetically engineered ingredients in our food supply, almost all are limited in scope (there is a review of 24 studies focusing on nutritional equivalency), and short term, with most of them dealing with genetically engineered foods other than corn and soybeans.  

Which means that the bottom line is that there are no published, peer reviewed studies on the toxicological impacts of today's commercial genetically engineered ingredients now found in our food supply, and almost none on older genetically engineered ingredients, that provide evidence that show that these foods are toxicologically safe.  

At the conclusion of the abstract for the paper, the author himself poses the question: “where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe?”

To me, that is a question so important that it was unequivocally an “Idea Worth Spreading,” a question worth asking, a dialogue worth having.   

Correlation is not causation but with the Centers for Disease Control now reporting that cancer is the leading cause of death by disease in children under the age of fifteen, that there has been a 265% increase in the rates of hostpiatlizations related to food allergic reaction, it is worth noting that “no evidence of harm” is not the same as “evidence of no harm.” 

What we are witnessing, through 55 members of Congress that have called for the labeling of these ingredients, the over one million Americans who have sent comments to the FDA asking for the same, interest in a TEDx talk given by a former financial analyst, author and mother of four, is a movement, perhaps begun by the Spanish researcher with his ask for the scientific evidence showing that genetically engineered foods are toxicologically safe, and a call for the labeling of these foods, as they are labeled in over 40 countries around the world, until we have more science.

It is a call for studies that might alert a pregnant woman working on a farm about the impact that her exposure to these crops and the chemicals used to produce them might have on the health of her unborn babies.

It is a call for science and for the research that tells a mother if her child is allergic to conventional soybeans, the kind that has been in our food supply for generations, or if her child is allergic to the genetically engineered components now found in soybeans that were introduced in the late 1990s. 

It is a call for the scientific tests that would enable a father to test his child for those differences at his allergist’s office.

It is a call for science and our right to know about the foods that we are eating and what their impact might be on the health of our families. 

Is correlation causation?  Not at all, but with millions of Americans beginning to wake up to the fact that we have additives in our food supply, from lean beef trimmings, to artificial growth hormones to genetically engineered ingredients, additives that were not in our foods a generation ago, we are asking for more science, integrity in science, full disclosure of the financial engineering behind the science, and for labels and the right to make an informed choice about what we are feeding our families. 

We have learned what can happen otherwise, from the tobacco industry to the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, so I hope that the TED team will continue the conversation with consumers, genetic engineers as well as financial ones, economists and the medical community in a forum in which attendees can express their opinions and one that requires full disclosure of any institutional ties, research grants or patents of those involved to preserve the dialogue and the scientific integrity of the discussion.  

Because as Carl Sagan once said, "We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology."

An idea worth spreading?  A dialogue worth having? Absolutely. 

And while we talk about it, let's label these ingredients as they are labeled in countries around the world - like England, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, the European Union, China, Russia and India, so that Americans have the same liberty to know that these new ingredients have been introduced into our food, too. 

Additional Resources: 

Scientific Integrity: Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/
Toxicity Studies of Genetically Modified Plants: http://www.biosafety.ru/ftp/domingo.pdf
Faculty Endowments: http://www.uff.ufl.edu/FacultyEndowments/ProfessorshipInfo.asp?ProfessorshipFund=007489
Kevin Folta's Blog: http://kfolta.blogspot.com/2012/03/complete-insanity-in-theater-built-by.html
UF Scientists Collaborate with Monsanto: http://news.ifas.ufl.edu/2011/10/14/uf-scientists-collaborate-with-monsanto-to-develop-improved-computer-model-for-corn-production/
The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster: A Study in Organizational Ethics http://pirate.shu.edu/~mckenndo/pdfs/The%20Space%20Shuttle%20Challenger%20Disaster.pdf
Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods: Approaches to Assessing Unintended Health Consequences http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309092094

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

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

Anyone who has followed my work, knows that I sing a constant refrain:

None of us can do everything, but all of us can do something.

Thank goodness, right?  Especially when there are certain things that you know you are just not good at. 

For me, that lack in expertise revolves around tools for design technology.  I have never been trained in them, think they can be used to create pieces of work that are absolutely beautiful and am in awe (and so envious) of those who possess the talent.

So when someone reached out to share the work that she had created after hearing one of my TEDx talks, it absolutely blew me away.  It is something that leveraged her unique talents with her passion (which we happen to share about clean and safe food) and inspired me so much that I wanted to share it here.  

Hope it inspires you, too!

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

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

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

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

Sounded powerful, to me.

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

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

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

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

It is certainly food for thought.

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.

It's not every day that you come upon a food video that stops you in your tracks. One that makes you sit up and take notice, that doesn't turn you off or shut you down.