If You Don't Buy Our Beef, We Won't Buy Your Cheese!

The value of US agricultural exports in 2003 neared $60 billion. That's not pocket change. I've come to understand that agricultural subsidies play too big a role in our nation's economy for them to go away any time soon. (Pass the subsidized, genetically engineered corn and soy, please.)

Subsidies keep prices for US goods on the international market low (so low that our farmers, in fact, sell their goods at a loss - but our government pays them the difference). Keeping prices low keeps exports high. Exports are a vital source of revenue (see above).

An aside - subsidies and other government handouts to agriculture encourage overproduction, increasing supply and lowering the price of goods on the market even more, which creates an even greater dependence on exports and subsidies ... which leads to overproduction ... in a self-propagating cycle. (Paul Roberts' recent book goes into more detail.)

Anyway......
Shaun sent this article today that depicts beautifully what I was trying to say with all those words above.

It's from today's Washington Post:
Bush War on Roquefort Raises a Stink in France

Europe doesn't want our beef because we put hormones in it. But we have to export our beef! (See above.) So, tit-for-tat, we're blocking Europe's cheese:

In its final days, the Bush administration imposed a 300 percent duty on Roquefort, in effect closing off the U.S. market. Americans, it declared, will no longer get to taste the creamy concoction that, in its authentic, most glorious form, comes with an odor of wet sheep and veins of blue mold that go perfectly with rye bread and coarse red wine.

The measure, announced Jan. 13 by U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab as she headed out the door, was designed as retaliation for a European Union ban on imports of U.S. beef containing hormones. Tit for tat, and all perfectly legal under World Trade Organization rules, U.S. officials explained.

Besides, they said, Roquefort is only one of dozens of European luxury products that were attacked with high tariffs. The list includes, among other things, French truffles, Irish oatmeal, Italian sparkling water and "fatty livers of ducks and geese," which apparently is how Washington trade bureaucrats say foie gras.

No more San Pellegrino? It's cutthroat out there.
________

GE Labeling: The Hot Potato

Why I think labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods is the power broker:

Manufacturers and politicians defend GE foods on the basis of safety studies (results of which are still far from conclusive). However, there are reasons other than safety that consumers cite for choosing what to eat, e.g. ethics, religion, dietary restrictions, international trade and fair trade (Europe doesn't want our GE grain or livestock). Labeling places power back into the hands of the consumer.

Withholding information about GE foods treats the consumer with contempt ... "We know what's best for you." I respect that there are people in industry, in government, and in other decision-making positions who are comfortable with GMOs. I wish they would respect my need as a consumer to be informed, so I may choose to be comfortable with them too ... or not.

When GE foods were labeled in Europe, manufacturers sought non-GE ingredients. Demand for GE foods decreased, acreage planted decreased.

We need labels.
________

There's Mercury In High Fructose Corn Syrup

This is not good news.

Mercury has been found in high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which means there's mercury in foods that contain HFCS.

Press release from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, January 26, 2009:
Much High Fructose Corn Syrup Contaminated With Mercury, New Study Finds
Brand-Name Food Products Also Discovered to Contain Mercury

"Mercury was found in nearly 50 percent of tested samples of commercial high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)."

"A separate study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) detected mercury in nearly one-third of 55 popular brandname food and beverage products."

"Mercury is toxic in all its forms," said IATP’s David Wallinga, M.D., and a co-author in both studies. "Given how much high fructose corn syrup is consumed by children, it could be a significant additional source of mercury never before considered. We are calling for immediate changes by industry and the FDA to help stop this avoidable mercury contamination of the food supply.

It looks like the caustic soda used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel is contaminated with mercury.

Here are product names from the full report:
Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup


Click for larger.

Amounts

"Mercury [was found] ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup."

"It is difficult to know to what to compare this figure. The EPA has established a "reference dose," or maximum recommended dietary intake of methylmercury. Methylmercury is the form typically found in fish and seafood. The reference dose of 0.1 ug/kg/day applies to women of childbearing age and young children, who are thought to be the most at risk from methylmercury exposure. For the "average" 55 kg American woman, this would translate into no more than 5.5ug/day of methylmercury."

________

Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act

I was reading the Bill that was introduced a few months ago in Congress (but that languished in Committee and died a few weeks ago when the new Congress was seated - never to become law).

It was a Bill that originated in the House of Representatives:
HR 6636, 110th Congress
Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act

It mandates labels for genetically engineered food:

"To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require that food that contains a genetically engineered material, or that is produced with a genetically engineered material, be labeled accordingly."

It was introduced by former presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, and was supported by 11 other members of Congress:

Sponsor:
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. (OH-10] - 7/29/2008
Cosponsors:
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4] - 7/29/2008
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 9/25/2008
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 7/29/2008
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22] - 7/29/2008
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 7/29/2008
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 7/29/2008
Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 7/29/2008
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 7/29/2008
Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4] - 7/29/2008
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 7/29/2008
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 9/10/2008

Here's the full text of the bill.

Here's a part I found interesting. Congress gave the following justification for the labeling of foods made from genetically engineered ingredients:

The Congress finds as follows:
(1) The process of genetically engineering foods results in the material change of such foods.
(2) The Congress has previously required that all foods bear labels that reveal material facts to consumers.
(3) Federal agencies have failed to uphold Congressional intent by allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed, sold and otherwise used without labeling that reveals material facts to the public.
(4) Consumers wish to know whether the food they purchase and consume contains or is produced with a genetically engineered material for a variety of reasons, including the potential transfer of allergens into food and other health risks, concerns about potential environmental risks associated with the genetic engineering of crops, and religiously and ethically based dietary restrictions.
(5) Consumers have a right to know whether the food they purchase contains or was produced with genetically engineered material.
(6) Labels voluntarily placed on foods are insufficient to provide consumers with adequate information on whether or not all the food they are purchasing contains or was produced with genetically engineered material.
(7) Mandatory labeling provides a critical scientific method necessary for the continual postmarket surveillance to study long-term health impacts and enforcement of food safety laws preventing adulterated foods from reaching consumers.
(8) Many of the United States’ key trading partners, including countries in the European Union, Japan, and the People’s Republic of China, have established, or are in the process of implementing, mandatory labeling requirements for genetically engineered food.
(9) Adoption and implementation of mandatory labeling requirements for genetically engineered food produced in the United States would facilitate international trade by allowing American farmers and companies to export and appropriately market their products--both genetically engineered and non-genetically engineered--to foreign customers.

All of the arguments I've heard used in defense of labeling are tightly summarized, right here, in a Bill written by Congress and endorsed by several of its members. Health risks, environmental risks, ethical decisions, post-market surveillance, international trade markets - it's all here. I want to be a Senator or Representative and I want to reintroduce this Bill to the new 111th Congress. I want to do that.
________

Change In America

Obama revamped his campaign site: Change.org. Strike that. As Bryan pointed out, Change.org and Change.gov are separate entities.

Change.org (not associated with the White House), touts itself as a "community [where people can] get directly involved in the work of reinvigorating our nation's civic life," and hosts a variety of blogs to that end, including:

• Poverty In America
  
• Fair Trade
  
• Sustainable Food
  
• Autism
  
• Universal Health Care

It invites:

"Stay with us as we expand upon these ideas in the next year and respond to President Obama's commitment that he's listening."

________

Saw Palmetto, NIH Gives It Top Grade

Just a few more things about saw palmetto before I move on. Tuck it away. (My previous post: Saw palmetto was found to be as effective as the prescription drug Flomax for BPH.)

The government's National Institutes of Health (NIH), in their MedlinePlus feature, gives saw palmetto a grade of A* for improving symptoms of BPH:

"Numerous human trials report that saw palmetto improves symptoms of benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH) such as nighttime urination, urinary flow, and overall quality of life, although it may not greatly reduce the size of the prostate. ... Overall the weight of available scientific evidence favors the effectiveness of saw palmetto over placebo."
- NIH MedlinePlus: Saw palmetto (Serenoa repens)

* Key to grades:
A: Strong scientific evidence for this use
B: Good scientific evidence for this use
C: Unclear scientific evidence for this use
D: Fair scientific evidence against this use
F: Strong scientific evidence against this use

The above is for treatment of BPH. Newer research is investigating the use of saw palmetto in prostate cancer:

Characterizing Components Of The Saw Palmetto Berry Extract (SPBE) On Prostate Cancer Cell Growth And Traction, Biochemical And Biophysical Research Communications, December 2008

"The results show for the first time the potential of [Saw Palmetto Berry Extracts] as potential anti-tumor agents."

In this study, saw palmetto extracts increased p53 protein expression. P53 protein is the famous tumor suppressor and natural anti-cancer agent that we make, or transcribe, from our DNA. P53 can repair damaged DNA sections or just kill off cells whose DNA damage is too great to fix. If it's true that 35% of men over the age of 50 have some prostate cancer cells, p53 is a good thing to have around.

The above study was conducted in Germany. There's much promise for the use of saw palmetto in prostate disorders, but I suspect most of the research will be conducted oversees.

Note: Capsules that contain the whole dried berry are less potent than those containing the fat-based extracts. Most studies I've seen use the extract, although the whole berry is thought to contain other beneficial compounds.
________

US Dietary Supplements Need Labels Indicating GMO Status

I was in a vitamin shop yesterday:

Me: Hi. Do you have any organic vitamin E?
Clerk: *Check ... rummage ... check* No, I'm sorry. Nothing organic.
Me: I see. Well then, do you have anything that isn't genetically engineered?
Clerk: *Looking at me but not saying anything*
Me: It might say Non-GMO on the label.
Clerk: *Check ... rummage ... check*
Me: I was interested in an organic one because I see they're all made with soybean oil, and most of the soybean oil here in the US is genetically engineered.
Clerk: Ohhhh, yes ... Now I know what you mean. Actually, all these brands come from just one or two manufacturers so they're basically all the same. I had a customer a few days ago from England and she wouldn't buy anything. She said that everything in the US seems to be, what word did she use ... Frankenfood?"
Me: Yes, I've heard that. Oh well, thanks for checking.

So I looked it up ...

In the 27 countries of the European Union, "Vitamin E or tocopherol from genetically modified plants (soy, maize, cotton) has to be declared."

Not so in the United States.

Vitamin E acts as an antioxidant. It's sold here as a dietary supplement. It's also added to foods (oils, margarine, dressings, packaged foods) and fatty supplements (fish oil, vitamin D) to prevent their fats from going rancid (becoming oxidized).

Genetically engineered corn and soy have been shown to lower fertility, interfere with metabolism, initiate or exacerbate allergies, and other effects I've written about. Why do the European Union and other developed countries require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods and supplements, but the US does not?

We need labels.________

Obama Freezes Bush's "Midnight Rules"

Good news.

Perhaps the FDA's "Final Guidance on Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals" (that I blogged about here), which failed to require labels on food from genetically engineered animals, and which was finalized a mere 5 days before Obama's inauguration, may not be implemented as prescribed.

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's Chief of Staff, issued a memo on Tuesday that effectively halted implementation of the Bush administration's last-minute regulations:

From Rahm Emanuel: Regulatory Review (pdf)

"It is important that President Obama's appointees and designees have the opportunity to review and approve any new or pending regulations."

The memo instructed:

1. If a Final Rule wasn't published in the Federal Register (FR) yet, don't publish until it can be reviewed.
   
2. If a Final Rule was published in the FR, extend the effective date by 60 days so it can be reviewed - and reopen public comments for 30 days.

________

"Eating A Bowl Of Cottage Cheese With Ketchup"

shaun sent this interview:
Chewing the Fat: No Reservations' Anthony Bourdain

Excerpt:

Q. The inauguration is tomorrow. Do you have any advice for our soon-to-be president ... About food?

A. I'll tell you. Alice Waters annoys the living shit out of me. We're all in the middle of a recession, like we're all going to start buying expensive organic food and running to the green market. There's something very Khmer Rouge about Alice Waters that has become unrealistic. I mean I'm not crazy about our obsession with corn or ethanol and all that, but I'm a little uncomfortable with legislating good eating habits. I'm suspicious of orthodoxy, the kind of orthodoxy when it comes to what you put in your mouth. I'm a little reluctant to admit that maybe Americans are too stupid to figure out that the food we're eating is killing us. But I don't know if it's time to send out special squads to close all the McDonald's. My libertarian side is at odds with my revulsion at what we as a country have done to ourselves physically with what we've chosen to eat and our fast food culture. I'm really divided on that issue. It'd be great if he [Obama] served better food at the White House than what I suspect the Bushies were serving. It's gotta be better than Nixon. He liked starting up a roaring fire, turning up the air conditioning, and eating a bowl of cottage cheese with ketchup. Anything above that is a good thing. He's from Chicago, so he knows what good food is.

Loved this:
"... Nixon. He liked starting up a roaring fire, turning up the air conditioning, and eating a bowl of cottage cheese with ketchup."

There's this pivotal time, in your 40s I think, late 40s, maybe 50s, early 50s ... when all of a sudden people realize that what they eat matters, it either makes them feel good or not so good. And they sit on that thought for awhile until something concrete arises, like debilitating arthritis, or high blood sugar, or god forbid a heart attack. Then, some of them, to quote Bourdain here, "start buying expensive organic food and running to the green market." Some others start taking drugs. It's one or the other at that point, there's no turning back.
________Photo of then Vice President Richard M. Nixon and family at dinner, 1958, from Life. Click for larger.

Food Chain

Lewis Regenstein, in "How to Survive in America the Poisoned," (1986, nominated for a Pulitzer Prize):

"Meat contains approximately 14 times more pesticides than do plant foods; dairy products 5.5 times more. Thus, by eating foods of animal origin, one ingests greatly concentrated amounts of hazardous chemicals."

Brought to you by bioaccumulation: "the additive accumulation of substances in the tissues of organisms in food chains (e.g. accumulation of mercury in fish, then in raccoons that eat many fish, then in panthers that eat many raccoons)."¹
________¹ New Mexico Envirothon
Painting: "The Food Chain" from Robert Kennedy

Do Not Irradiate Label

Here's something I've never seen before:

It just arrived: FedEx. It's a label on a package of organic rice* and beans that I purchased online from Gold Mine Natural Foods. I haven't opened the box yet, so I can't give a thumbs up or down on the product. But this is a reassuring sign. Funny, I've ordered organic food before but it never bore this label.

Has anyone else seen this?

* Since so much rice in this country, as I read, is genetically engineered, I'm on a quest for organic.
________Photo: Bix

History

________

Saw Palmetto VS. Flomax

This post may be helpful for men with urination difficulties related to an enlarged prostate.

A 320mg/day dose of Saw Palmetto finished in a dead heat against a 0.4mg/day dose of the popular alpha-1-blocker Flomax for symptomatic treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH).

That was the result of this study:
A Prospective Study Of The Efficacy Of Serenoa Repens, Tamsulosin, And Serenoa Repens Plus Tamsulosin Treatment For Patients With Benign Prostate Hyperplasia, International Urology and Nephrology, 2007

Serenoa repens is the herb known as Saw Palmetto (Wikipedia: Saw Palmetto). Tamsulosin is the pharmaceutical drug Flomax (Wikipedia: Flomax).

Findings:

"The groups were not statistically different with regard to increase in maximal urinary flow rate, and decrease in International Prostate Symptom Score. No adverse effect was detected in [Saw Palmetto] group."

The study also had a combined group whose participants took both Saw Palmetto and Flomax. That group was also not statistically different from the other groups, that is, there was no additional benefit to taking both:

"Combined therapy [Saw Palmetto + Flomax] does not provide extra benefits."

This study was not conducted in the US. The US is a pharmaceutical drug-centric country. As long as there is little money to be made in herbals, it will remain that way.

Retail price for 30-day supply:

• $7.05 for 30-day supply of Saw Palmetto Extract (320 mg, 100 softgels, $23.49, Vitamin Shoppe brand)
  
• $102.47 for 30-day supply of Flomax (0.4 mg, 90 capsules, $307.40, Drugstore.com)

Update: See what the National Institutes of Health have to say about saw palmetto.________

Snow Overnight

________Photo: Bix

Consumers Want Labels on Genetically Engineered Food

Jean Halloran (Director of Food Policy Initiatives at Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports) is fuming over the FDA's decision not to require labels on genetically engineered animal foods:

FDA Will Not Require Labeling Of Meat Or Fish From Genetically Engineered Animals:
Consumers Union Says Decision Ignores Consumer Right To Choose

"This one-minute-to-midnight regulation is a final favor to industry delivered as the current FDA Administrator goes out the door."

We hope the new Obama administration will reverse this ill-considered guidance and require labeling of genetically engineered meat and milk products as soon as possible after it takes office next week."

The photo shows genetically engineered coho salmon on the right, and natural coho salmon on the left. All salmon are one year of age. The larger salmon were genetically engineered to express more growth hormone, in doing so, to grow bigger in a shorter period of time.

In a January, 2003 article in the Washington Times, Stephen Mitchell, UPI Medical Correspondent wrote:¹

"The Center for Food Safety in Washington, which filed a legal petition with the FDA and other governmental agencies to keep the transgenic fish from coming to market, also has concerns about the health risks posed to humans consuming the fish. The FDA needs to establish "a real process of looking at the human health impacts of the fish," said Joseph Mendelson, the center's legal director.

Elevated levels of growth hormones could create risks or unintended effects, such as allergies in some people, Mendelson said."

I don't know enough about this yet, but weren't growth hormones a concern with milk from cows given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone)?

"Recent research has shown conclusively that the levels of a hormone called "insulin-like growth factor-1" (IGF-1) are elevated in dairy products produced from cows treated with rBGH.

Numerous studies now demonstrate that IGF-1 is an important factor in the growth of cancers of the breast, prostate and colon."²

There is also concern that genetically engineered fish could escape their pens (they're farmed) and damage native/wild populations.

I'm not arguing against genetic engineering; I'm arguing against lack of labels. People make decisions about what to eat based on issues other than food safety (there hasn't been a determination that GE animals are safe to eat), including environmental safety, sustainability, and ethics. People want labels:

"A recent Consumers Union poll found that 95 percent of consumers favor labeling of meat and milk from genetically engineered animals."

So why no labels?

"Despite thousands of comments from consumers saying they want to know if engineered meat or fish is in their supermarket, FDA claims these foods are not different from conventional food, and therefore don't need to be labeled. ... This flies in the face of consumer opinion and common sense. These foods should be labeled because they are different."
- Jean Halloran

________¹ Safety Of Transgenic Animals Doubted
² Center For Food Safety: rBGH/rBST
Photo from Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2008 March Status Report, Chapter 14 - Responses to Environmental Petitions: Genetically Engineered Fish

Peanut Butter Off The Menu, Off The Market?

Before I turned my computer off last night, this was CNN's hot story:

Peanut Butter.

This shouldn't have happened again. How is it that the peanut output from one plant can sicken upwards of 15,000 people in 43 states without sufficient oversight? Take 6 lives? Cause thousands of people to question the safety of the foods in their kitchen, on store shelves, being served to them in hospitals, schools, and restaurants?

Why didn't the FDA take steps to avoid this after the similar incident with Peter Pan peanut butter in 2007? Why didn't the FDA recall these foods after they discovered the source of contamination?

I know the answer to those last questions. As the CNN article said:

"The FDA does not have the authority to order a recall of products. It has to rely on companies doing so voluntarily. Congress would have to pass a law to give the FDA such power."

In fact, the FDA requested recall authority from Congress in November 2007, in their "Food Protection Plan." Congress, under the influence of the Bush administration, decided not to grant them that authority, and failed to fund additional food safety measures spelled out in the Food Protection Plan.

For as much as I fault the Peanut Corporation of America and their reckless, bottom-line-driven manufacturing practices, I fault Congress for not supporting and funding food safety regulation in this country.
________

Vilsack Confirmation Hearing, Part 3

Just one more excerpt (another here) from the Vilsack hearing and I'm done.

Here is Senator Roberts interviewing former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack. Roberts reveals what I'd say is a bias that exists against those whose mission (some say) clashes with the important work of "production agriculture" farmers - "the folks who produce the food and fiber for America and a troubled and hungry world," says Sen. Roberts.

At about 1:38:00 into the 2.5-hour hearing, Sen. Roberts says:

"Now Governor, we're sitting here in, what is it, Dirksen G-50, and this is the scene of the great Ag Conference Committee that produced the farm bill. It was a little unusual, the chairman and I were a little startled to see that we had 61 members at that Ag conference where we usually have about 20. I made the comment when, the person allegedly in charge of the House, made 4 speeches and said 4 times he didn't know why he was there."

"I also made the comment that it looked like the bar scene from Star Wars but that may be a little ... a little drastic."

Anyone from the small farm contingent would have reveled in Vilsack's look of astonishment at that point.

"But there were a lot of people there that weren't involved in production agriculture. I have no problem with the programs that they want. But they actually acted like Lizzie Borden, after they gave us one whack - why they gave us about 41 others."

Senator Roberts is a respected authority on agriculture in Congress. He served as Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture from 1995-1997, and was recently Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Ethics (1999-2001), and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2003-2007).
________

Vilsack Confirmation Hearing, Part 2

There were actually some choice words during this hearing, although not by Mr. Vilsack - the chap is smooth and practiced, a true politician. No, these choice words came from the Republican Senator from Kansas, Pat Roberts (pictured), the same Pat Roberts who, from my last post, came to the defense of crop subsidies.

Here is Senator Roberts talking about America's small family farmer:¹

"That small family farmer is about 5'2", and I'm looking to see if Mr. Leahy is still here, um, from Vermont, and he's a retired airline pilot and sits on his porch on a glider reading Gentleman's Quarterly -- he used to read the Wall Street Journal but that got pretty grim -- then his wife works as stock broker downtown. And he has 40 acres, and he has a pond, and he has an orchard and he grows organic apples. Sometimes there is a little more protein in those apples than people bargain for, and he's very happy to have that."

Contrast that with his description of America's "production agriculture" farmer:

"That person is in Iowa. He's got 2,000 acres and he farms and he farms with his dad. Two brothers have gone because they can't really sustain that on the farm. His counterpart in Kansas, in my part of the country, has 10,000 acres. And his tractor costs about $350,000. It's amazing, in terms of the costs. But these folks are the folks who produce the food and fiber for America and a troubled and hungry world."

In sum:

"There are some that want to change the mission of the USDA," Roberts said. "Some think the department should be called the Department of Food or Nutrition or Hunger, or really, I think what they want is a Department of Anything But Agriculture."

Was there a reference to Michael Pollan there?

I don't know, he makes the small farmer in this country sound so ... quaint.

Update: Here's one more quotation from Senator Roberts.
________¹ Thanks to virginia, you can watch Senator Roberts recite his comments, at 1:32:00 into the 2.5-hour hearing, on C-Span.org.

FDA Will Not Be Requiring Labels on Food From Genetically Engineered Animals

Just hours ago, 5 days before the changeover to the new administration (they must have been in a hurry to get this done, did they anticipate resistance?), the FDA released its "Final Guidance on Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals".

Here's the Consumer Fact Sheet:
FDA Issues Final Guidance on Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals

Here's the actual Guidance for Industry document (pdf):
Guidance for Industry: Regulation of Genetically Engineered Animals Containing Heritable Recombinant DNA Constructs

Here's the relevant paragraph on labeling:

"We note that labeling of food from GE animals would be subject to the same requirements as food from non-GE animals, and that as with food from GE plants, the fact that the animal from which food was obtained was genetically engineered would not be material information with respect to labeling. However, if food from a GE animal is different from that of its non-engineered counterpart, for example if it has a different nutritional profile, in general that difference would be material information that would have to be revealed in labeling."

That says to me that the FDA has decided, after 60 days of public comment, to allow food from genetically engineered animals to be marketed without a label indicating such.

The qualifier about a "different nutritional profile" still does not look like it requires that the food be labeled as genetically engineered, only that the nutritional difference be disclosed. If a frozen dinner entree contained a food item from an animal that was engineered to contain higher levels of omega-3 fatty acids, only the "Higher in Omega-3" might appear on the label - not the fact that it was derived from a GE animal.

This is disappointing.
________Photo from the New York Times "Without U.S. Rules, Biotech Food Lacks Investors". The caption read:
"Even though these Atlantic salmon are roughly the same age, the big one was genetically engineered to grow at twice the rate of normal salmon."

"Organic " Food Mostly Non-GMO

The National Organic Program which establishes standards for organic food in this country falls under the USDA, and so will fall under the watch, ultimately, of Mr. Vilsack.

Here's what the National Organic Standards Board Policy and Procedures Manual says regarding genetically engineered foods:

"1.11 Genetic engineering (recombinant and technology) is a synthetic process designed to control nature at the molecular level, with the potential for unforeseen consequences. As such, it is not compatible with the principles of organic agriculture (either production or handling). Genetically engineered/modified organisms (geo/gmo’s) and products produced by or through the use of genetic engineering are prohibited."

"1.12 Although organic standards prohibit the use of certain materials such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically engineered organisms, they cannot ensure that organic products are completely free of residues due to background levels in the environment."

I take that to mean that foods which display the USDA Organic label are free from genetically engineered ingredients ... mostly. (Foods bearing the USDA Organic label are only required to contain at least 95% organic ingredients.)

I also take that to mean that if we don't implement practices to control non-deliberate contamination of organic crops by genetically engineered organisms, the claim "organic" will have little meaning.
________

Tom Vilsack In Line For USDA Helm

After listening to the confirmation hearing for Obama's pick to lead the USDA, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, I've concluded that his fate as our next Secretary of Agriculture is sealed - regardless of the Organic Consumers Association's 40,000-signature strong petition calling on Congress to reject the Vilsack nomination.

Mr. Vilsack gave eloquent, if noncommittal, answers to questions, succeeding I thought in easing concerns of both USDA-entrenched "production agriculture" supporters, and those desiring a stronger role for organics, local food, sustainably grown crops, and methods that will impact the global climate crisis.

One example: When Republican Pat Roberts from Kansas defended crop subsidies (funding for commodity crops like corn, soy, wheat, rice) - surely anxious that Obama would follow through with his promise to decrease them - and asked for his comments, Vilsack replied:

"I think it's incumbent upon [the USDA] to recognize the importance of that farm safety net. ... I think it's also important to make sure that people who deserve to get support are getting that support, and folks who don't deserve to get it aren't getting it."

A non-answer if there ever was one, but well-stated.

I don't believe change will come by steamrolling, but by working with people whose ideas may be 180º from your own. Obama is demonstrating a desire to work with people who might not hold his views - something I wish our soon-to-be former President would have done. His selection of Vilsack, as I'm coming to see, falls in line with that methodology.

Vilsack has a tightrope to walk; I haven't seen yet that he's fallen well to either side. The actions he takes after January 20 will be more telling.

By the way, the topic of genetic engineering never came up. The discussion surrounding biofuels, however, doesn't bode well for anti-GE advocates, since increasing crop yields (which can make biofuels cheaper to produce and more affordable for consumers downstream) is one of the purviews of the biotech (read: genetic engineering) industry.
________

GMO-Fed Livestock Incorporate Foreign GMO Genes Into Their Own Tissues

Over on Marion Nestle's site, I asked:

"If we feed livestock genetically modified grain crops, and we eat the livestock, are we consuming anything that has been genetically engineered?"

The reply was no, not in a healthy animal.

However, I had read this study ...

Detection Of Transgenic And Endogenous Plant DNA In Digesta And Tissues Of Sheep And Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal, Journal Of Agricultural And Food Chemistry, 2006

... which found that genetically engineered (GE) DNA passed intact into the intestines and was incorporated into the tissues of animals:

"This study confirms that feed-ingested DNA fragments (endogenous and transgenic) do survive to the terminal GI tract and that uptake into gut epithelial tissues does occur."

The foreign GE DNA was found in the animals' duodenum, cecum, large intestine, liver, and kidney tissues. Those last two organs raise the specter of systemic infestation.

Not only were the animals' tissues infected with foreign, genetically engineered DNA, but that DNA could code for foreign proteins, e.g. pesticides.

Given these findings, I can see how we might be ingesting genetically modified DNA and resultant proteins when we consume GMO-fed livestock.

All of this begs the question ... How much of that foreign GE DNA gets incorporated into our own tissues? And could that DNA then be capable of manufacturing the very pesticides (and other potentially toxic chemicals) for which it was designed to code?

Why won't the US require that these foods be labeled?
________Photo: Cook Islands Biodiversity

Legislation Regarding Genetically Engineered Food

Last Friday, Jan 9, we received a letter back from one of our Senators, Bob Casey, regarding genetically engineered food.

Some relevant excerpts:

"We must therefore proceed cautiously and submit any foods produced from this process to rigorous safety inspections and other relevant scientific testing. I understand that you have serious concerns about consuming foods which have been genetically altered. As these foods continue to be introduced into grocery stores across the country, it is imperative that consumers like you have accurate information about the foods they buy for themselves and their families."

I like the "imperative that consumers like you have accurate information about the foods they buy" part.

Here was the best part of the letter:

"You may be interested to know that three bills were offered in the House of Representatives during the 110th Congress that addressed this important issue. All introduced by Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, they include H.R. 6635, the Genetically Engineered Safety Act, H.R. 6636, the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act, and H.R. 6637, the Genetically Engineered Technology Farmer Protection Act.

The Senate did not have the opportunity to take action on any of these bills before the end of the year. Therefore, in order for these measures to be considered by the full Senate in the future, they must be reintroduced during the 111th Congress, which begins in January 2009. Should the Senate consider these or related proposals at that time, please be assured that I will keep your views in mind."

So, knowledge of the hazards associated with genetically engineered foods have not escaped our representatives in Washington. In fact, bills have already been written (and what a fine job someone did of writing them).

If you are concerned about genetically engineered foods (safety, labeling), you might want to email or write just 3 people: your Representative and Senators in Washington. It doesn't even have to be a long, descriptive missive. Just refer to these three bills (HR 6635, HR 6636, HR 6637 from the 110th Congress) and say you'd like your Senator/Rep to support them.
________

Stuck On Rice

Every day. What can I say.
________Photo: Bix
(Not that my rice was sticking, but that I'm addicted.)

How Do You Avoid GM Foods If They Aren't Labeled?

In 2003, Dean Metcalfe from the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases published a mini-monograph in the government's peer-reviewed journal Environmental Health Perspectives:

Introduction: What Are the Issues In Addressing The Allergenic Potential Of Genetically Modified Foods?

It's a quick read. In it, I saw:

"It is inevitable that application of this technology has raised a number of fundamental concerns, including the consequences of reporter genes, the spread of resistance genes to surrounding plants, the use of suicide genes to prohibit reuse of seed from engineered plants, and finally, whether these altered plants may be allergenic."

I thought that sentence summed up nicely some of the emerging problems with these crops.

As to possible allergenic traits, Metcalfe said:

"Much of the need to address the safety of modified foods is because currently there is no available means to cure a given individual of an immediate reaction to food. The strategy for protection of a sensitive individual involves instruction on dietary avoidance of the foods in question."

How do you instruct a sensitive individual to avoid foods that may be causing their allergic reaction if those foods aren't labeled?
________The photo is for a product produced in the Netherlands. The European Union requires labeling of genetically modified foods. As of this date, the US does not.

Monsanto and Its GM Seed Are Doing Exceptionally Well

CNN Money: Monsanto First-Quarter Profit Leaps 54%

"January 7, 2009 - Monsanto Co. said Wednesday its fiscal first-quarter profit leapt 54% on farmer demand for its genetically-engineered seed and strength in its Latin America market."

Motley Fool: Monsanto's Back!

"January 8, 2009 - Witness Monsanto, which blew the doors off Wall Street's estimates yesterday.

Overall sales of seeds rose 31% compared to last year. Sales of Roundup and other herbicides fared even better, up 35% compared to last year."

Bloomberg: Monsanto Jumps 18% on Earnings, Higher 2009 Forecast

"January 7, 2009 - Profit in the fiscal first quarter more than doubled because of increased sales of Roundup weed-killer and corn seeds, Monsanto said today in a statement."

Something about this reminds me of a steamroller.
________

Genetic Roulette

A few years ago, I thought genetically engineered plants weren't much different from plants that had been crossbred, e.g. cross a white rose with a red rose, get a pink rose. I was naive.

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, describes the process that leads to genetic modification as unpredictable:

"Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant’s DNA. Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression."

Forgive me for my candor, but this sounds like a crapshoot.

"Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work."

I envisioned a more delicate operation. Where's the science? What's the hurry? If we're going to be eating (truth is, we are eating) corn and soy with DNA that has been blasted with a "gene gun," shouldn't there be some human safety trials?

Even when biotech firms succeed in creating seed with a desired trait:

• "The inserted gene is often rearranged."
  
• "It may transfer from the food into our body’s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us." (I described this already happening at You May Be Roundup-Ready.)
  
• "The GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects."

It's a foreboding fact that soy allergies skyrocketed in the United Kingdom after GM soy was introduced.

It would be nice to advance this conversation beyond conspiracy theories and political rhetoric.
________

Monsanto's Roundup Residues in Genetically Modified Food Found To Cause Cell Damage

This is fresh news...

One reason companies like Monsanto promote their genetically modified seed is that it's designed to be used with herbicides they also sell, such as the herbicide Roundup. (Thus "Roundup Ready" seed.)

Since the crops have been genetically modified to resist damage from the herbicide, more of it can be used. In fact, GM crops have been shown to be contaminated with higher levels of herbicides than conventional crops.

Are those herbicides safe to consume?

Authors of a study just published...
Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis And Necrosis In Human Umbilical, Embryonic, And Placental Cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology, December 23, 2008

... think not.

The active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, which, by itself, is not as harmful as the formulations with which it's mixed - formulations which are designed to boost the action of the active ingredient.

From their abstract:

"The proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death around residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from Round-up formulation-treated crops."

From their press release:

"In this research, the formulations were diluted at minimal doses (up to 100,000 times or more) and they programmed cell death in a few hours in a cumulative manner. We also noted membrane and DNA damages, and found that the formulations inhibit cell respiration."

They used very diluted doses of the herbicide, such that "they were not herbicides anymore." The residues still damaged and killed cells.

Of note: Something that "inhibits cell respiration" slows the action of mitochondria, which is where, in our cells, we manufacture energy (in the form of ATP). Feeling tired? It may be the amount of Roundup residues on your GM soy foods.

Here's a strong statement from authors of a research paper:

"The rules apply to glyphosate whatever its formulation may be, this is wrong."

The authors contend that safety guidelines are based on the active ingredient (glyphosate) alone. Their investigation found that chemicals glyphosate is mixed with amplify its action and make it more toxic. (I never hear the word "wrong." There must be emotion behind it.)

What can I say ... I will (and have) grown to love my weeds. And GM corn and soy? No, thank you.
________

Blueberries May Prevent (or Slow Growth of) Prostate Cancer

Someone said to me, "Great, it seems everything raises the risk for prostate cancer! What doesn't?"

Blueberries:

Differential Effects Of Blueberry Proanthocyanidins On Androgen Sensitive And Insensitive Human Prostate Cancer Cell Lines, Cancer Letters, 2006

This study compared wild vs. cultivated blueberry. The cultivated blueberry fared better, inhibiting the growth of androgen-dependant prostate cancer cells by up to 57% compared to control.
________
Inhibition Of Matrix Metalloproteinase Activity In DU145 Human Prostate Cancer Cells By Flavonoids From Lowbush Blueberry (Vaccinium Angustifolium), The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 2006

This study found that blueberries can reduce activity of an enzyme which reduces the ability of prostate cancer cells to spread or metastasize:

"These findings indicate that blueberry flavonoids may use multiple mechanisms in down-regulating matrix metalloproteinase (MMP) activity ... important in controlling [prostate] tumor metastasis formation."

________
Cranberry And Blueberry: Evidence For Protective Effects Against Cancer And Vascular Diseases, Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, 2007

This was a review. Cites the benefits for cranberry too:

"Growing evidence from tissue culture, animal, and clinical models suggests that the flavonoid-rich fruits of the North American cranberry and blueberry have the potential ability to limit the development and severity of certain cancers and vascular diseases including atherosclerosis, ischemic stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases of aging."

"The evidence suggests a potential role for dietary cranberry and blueberry in the prevention of cancer and vascular diseases."

________
Finally, there's Blueberry Punch, a commercially available beverage from Dr. Red Nutraceuticals in Australia. (This is not a plug.) It's actually a blend containing "a combination of fruit concentrates (blueberry, red grape, raspberry and elderberry), grape seed and skin extract, citrus skin extracts, green tea extract (EGCG), olive leaf and olive pulp extracts, tarragon, turmeric and ginger."

In a presentation last December at the American Association for Cancer Research, researchers from the University of Sydney reported:

"After feeding mice a 10 percent solution of the punch for two weeks, the [prostate] tumors in the test mice were 25 percent smaller than those found in mice that drank only tap water."

________
Blueberries aren't the only berry that have been shown to prevent or slow tumor growth, nor is cancer of the prostate the only cancer berries protect against. But when I think prostate, I think blueberries.
________

Overweight Men On Statins Have An Increased Risk For Prostate Cancer

Since I'm on the topic of prostate cancer, I may as well post this study from a few months ago:

Statin Use and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Results from a Population-based Epidemiologic Study, American Journal of Epidemiology, August 2008

Dairy food consumption is not alone in its link to prostate cancer. Add statins to the list - but only if the men who take them are overweight.

In this study, men with a BMI > 30 (Calculate your BMI here. A man 5'10", 209 lb has a BMI = 30.) who used statins had a 50% higher risk for prostate cancer than obese non-statin-users (so, it wasn't just because they were overweight). If obese men used statins for 5 years or more, that risk jumped to 80%.

Mechanism

Two mechanisms were put forth:

1. Levels of a protein called sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) were found in a previous study to be lower in statin users; and a recent analysis of studies revealed that men with lower levels of SHBG were at higher risk of developing prostate cancer.
   
   
2. Statins have been shown to increase the level of regulatory T-cells, "which may suppress antitumor T-cell response and thereby enhance cancer risk."

Statins seem a far cry from the magic pill drug companies make them out to be.
________

How Much Oversight of Small Food Producers/Distributors?

There's a heated discussion going on at The Ethicurean regarding one of Bill Marler's Ten Top Food Safety Challenges for 2009:

Local Food Safety Cop?: In Which Bill Marler Is Compared To John Travolta, Ally McBeal, Julia Roberts, And 80s Pop Star Tiffany, All In One Place

The Challenge in question, Marler's #2:

2. Local Food: Outbreaks linked to local food and/or farmer's markets. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) groups and food co-ops need to demonstrate knowledge and practice of food safety, and be inspected. In addition to produce and meats/fish, prepared items are currently unsupervised.

I don't see anything threatening about it.

The author of the Ethicurean blog post however takes issue with it. She argues that since "small-scale producers are often the most responsible," they should be treated differently than large-scale producers when it comes to food safety.

She says that the small producer is not in it for the money:

"Unlike the large-scale processors, they put that quality above their financial interests day after day after day."

But she also says:

"If the cost of producing quality food for informed consumers becomes prohibitive," it could put the small producer out of business.

So, it is about making a profit?

I've read her post a number of times and I can't figure out if she is against licensure, inspection and oversight for small producers or not ... which, I believe, was the gist of Marler's #2 challenge.

In an earlier post, I referred to the food co-op Manna Storehouse. They didn't want to get a license. The state of Ohio wanted them to. After a year, the state conducted a raid and confiscated their product. Manna said it was unfair. However, some of Manna Storehouse's beef was discovered in a food service freezer at Oberlin College. I don't understand why a food co-op that knowingly distributes meat to a College shouldn't be licensed and inspected.
________

More Evidence That Dairy Foods Increase Risk For Prostate Cancer

In a previous post I addressed the link between dairy foods and prostate cancer. Here's another study that supports the theory that consumption of dairy foods increases that risk.

Diets of 142,251 male participants of the EPIC study¹ were analyzed:

Animal Foods, Protein, Calcium And Prostate Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation Into Cancer And Nutrition, British Journal of Cancer, May 2008

Findings:

A high intake of dairy protein was associated with an increased risk. ... The results support the hypothesis that a high intake of protein or calcium from dairy products may increase the risk for prostate cancer.

We estimated that a 35-g/day increase in consumption of dairy protein was associated with an increase in the risk of prostate cancer of 32%. ²

Calcium from dairy products was also positively associated with risk, but not calcium from other foods.

My previous post summarized a 2001 Harvard review of the body of evidence at that time on dairy intake and prostate cancer:

"[Consumption of dairy products] is one of the most consistent dietary predictors for prostate cancer in the published literature."

Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer found in men in the US, and the second leading cause of cancer death (after lung cancer). The American Cancer Society says that 1 man in 6 will get prostate cancer in his lifetime.
________¹ EPIC stands for European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition.
² One cup of plain, non-fat yogurt has 14g protein.

The European Union Requires Labeling of Foods Containing Genetically Modified Organisms, The US Does Not

Why does the European Union deem labeling for presence of GMOs a priority, but the US doesn't?

Here's what the 27 member states of the EU signed on to in 2001 (effective 2003):

Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 Of The European Parliament And Of The Council Of 22 September 2003 Concerning The Traceability And Labelling Of Genetically Modified Organisms And The Traceability Of Food And Feed Products Produced From Genetically Modified Organisms

Pertinent paragraph:

B. LABELLING

6. For products consisting of or containing GMOs, operators shall ensure that:

(a) for pre-packaged products consisting of, or containing GMOs, the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" or "This product contains genetically modified [name of organism(s)]" appear on a label;

(b) for non-pre-packaged products offered to the final consumer the words "This product contains genetically modified organisms" or "This product contains genetically modified [name of organism(s)]" shall appear on, or in connection with, the display of the product.

That's all we're asking ... label GMOs.

Sign The Petition

The Institute for Responsible Technology is collecting signatures on a petition requesting that President-elect Obama keep his campaign promise to require mandatory labeling of genetically modified foods:
Petition to President Obama to Support Mandatory Labeling of GM Foods
________Clicking the Non-GMO Shopping Guide will take you to it.

Disturbing Findings In Rats Fed Genetically Modified Soy

This story is troubling: Any soy product - soybeans, soybean oil, tofu, tempeh, miso, soy nuts, soy flour, soy protein supplements, soy cheese, soy anything - that doesn't say "organic" is, if you live in the US, probably genetically modified.

To the right is a photo from one of Dr. Irina Ermakova's studies investigating the safety of genetically modified (GM) soy.¹ The smaller rat on the right was fed GM soy. The rat on the left was not. The rats are the same age.

From that same presentation in 2005, she reported:

Additions	Females That Gave Birth	Born Rats (No.)	Dead Rats (No. / %) (in 3 weeks)
Control	4 (of 6)	44	3 / 6.8%
With GM Soy	4 (of 6)	45	25 / 55.6%
With Normal Soy	3 (of 3)	33	3 / 9%

Over half (55.6%) of the rats fed GM soy were dead in 3 weeks, compared to 9% fed regular soy. That's striking. And many that survived were, as depicted, malformed.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results we obtained very disturbing," said Irina Ermakova.

The presentation of this study (I can't get to the actual study) leaves many questions. I guess that follow-up studies were conducted. If this was a study investigating the safety of a new drug, would it reach clinical trial phases with preliminary data like this? Would it have been marketed? GM soy has been marketed, so I trust more studies are out there. They sure aren't accessible.

I did just post about a very recent study from Austria that supports Dr. Ermakova's finding:

Biological Effects Of Transgenic Maize NK603xMON810 Fed In Long Term Reproduction Studies In Mice

It said:

"Pup losses were higher in the GM group."
"The number of pups weaned, the average litter size and weight at weaning tended to be lower in the GM group as compared to the [non-GM] group."

Animal studies that reveal fertility issues with GM soy and GM corn, support the hypothesis that genetically modified foods can impact human fertility.
________¹ Genetically Modified Soy Affects Posterity: Results Of Russian Scientists’ Studies, October 2005

Where We Buy Our Food

And how that's wrecking havoc on our health.

"Today, twenty-one cents of every food dollar spent in the United States is spent at Wal-Mart." ¹

Some experts say that could rise to fifty cents by 2010:

"Wal-Mart is project to sell 50% of the groceries in the U.S. by 2010." ²

Wal-Mart keeps its prices low by forcing its suppliers to keep their prices low. Suppliers keep their prices low by acquiring increasingly cheaper raw materials (cheap sweeteners such as HFCS, cheap meats), often from countries such as China that offer them at cut rate prices.
________¹ The End of Food, Paul Roberts, 2008, p. 61
² Trends Driving Consumer Meat Preferences
Photo from Daylife. Caption: "Michael Lipsitz picks out a package of hot dogs while grocery shopping at the WalMart in Crossville, Tennessee in this March 21, 2008 file photo."