GMO, yeah? 5 surprises from an otherwise boring look at genetically modified crops

Researchers at the USDA’s Economic Research Service have stepped back to look at the effect of genetically engineered crops since they were introduced in the U.S. It’s a pretty dry and unsurprising document, but when read carefully a few interesting things jump out. Here’s five.

1. How many GMO trials are there? Tons

There have been thousands and thousands a field trials, which have translated to just a handful of different traits. A lot of these must have been for different, locally adapted varieties of, say, insect resistance. But it was also interesting to see how many trials there were for the low-profile GMOs. There were tests of plants with disease resistance, and plants with “resistance to cold, drought, frost, salinity, more efficient use of nitrogen, increased yield.” In addition to the big three (corn, cotton, and soy), the USDA has approved 11 kinds of tomatoes, eight forms of canola, five potatoes, sugarbeets, papaya, rice, squash, alfalfa, plum, rose, tobacco, flax, and chicory. About 12 percent of the squash grown in the U.S. is genetically engineered for disease resistance.

2. Herbicide tolerance is sneaky

Herbicide-tolerant soybeans grow on more than 90 percent of the soy acres in the U.S. But there doesn’t seem to be a direct benefit to farmers in terms of significantly higher yields. So why pay more for the GMO seed? Here’s what the researchers say:

The fact that several researchers found no significant differences between the net returns of adopters and nonadopters of HT crops (particularly HT soybeans) despite the rapid adoption of these crops suggests that many adopters may derive nonmonetary benefits from HT adoption. In particular, weed control for HT soybeans may be simpler, freeing up management time for leisure, enterprise growth, or off-farm income-generating activities.

In addition, farmers pay less for specialized herbicides and for the diesel needed to run a weed-busting cultivator.

3. Insecticide use is way down

That’s among both farmers who used GE insect-resistant crops and those who didn’t. “Corn insecticide use by both GE seed adopters and nonadopters has decreased — only 9 percent of all U.S. corn farmers used insecticides* in 2010. Insecticide use on corn farms declined from 0.21 pound per planted acre in 1995 to 0.02 pound in 2010.”

Wow. That’s a success story you don’t normally hear.

4. Traditional GMOs are increasingly monolithic

I’ve argued that we shouldn’t fight over “GMOs” but instead talk about the specific plants we like or dislike. There may be a problem with that argument: Now the main GE traits are coming bundled together. The argument, I think, still stands for rare cases (like disease resistance and Golden Rice).

5. Plowless farmers rise up

More and more farmers are growing crops with only minimal disturbance of the soil. That conserves topsoil, prevents run-off pollution, and allows for carbon capture in the fields. It’s good news, and it’s largely associated with the use of herbicide-tolerant crops (though I’m still not totally convinced the relationship is causal).

Here’s the entire doc for those who wish to dig deeper. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

*This is the percentage of farmers who applied insecticide to their fields. It doesn’t include the farmers that used insecticides just by planting seeds: Many seeds are coated with an insecticide, which the plant sucks up and uses to fend off bugs. These systemic insecticides may cause less collateral damage because they aren’t sprayed over the entire field, but there are suggestions that they may hurt pollinators.

[via

The Post-GMO Economy

One mainstream farmer is returning to conventional seed — and he’s not alone

As an invulnerable tween, Chris Huegerich, the child of a prosperous farming family, wiped out on his motorcycle in tiny Breda, Iowa. Forty years on, folks still call Huegerich “Crash.” And though he eventually went down a conventional path (married, divorced) and bought out his parents’ farm, Huegerich has recently reverted to his daredevil ways — at least when it comes to choosing what kind of corn to plant.

It’s late November, and Huegerich’s 2,800 acres in central Iowa have been neatly shorn to sepia-and-umber stubble. His enormous combines and cultivators have been precision parked — wheel nut to headlight — inside his equipment sheds. But in Huegerich’s office, between the fields and the sheds, chaos reigns. A dozen dog-eared seed catalogs litter a table, along with marked-up spreadsheets and soil maps. For farmers choosing next year’s crop, this is decision time.

Huegerich, in his combine. He has no ideological problem with GMOs but has been experimenting with conventional seeds for financial reasons

Buying seeds used to be a fairly simple matter. Farmers picked four or five varieties offered by a regional dealer, and that was that. But in the mid-1990s, biotech companies started producing seeds genetically modified with traits from other organisms. One trait made soybeans resistant to the herbicide glyphosate; another, using a protein from the soil bacterium Bt, helped corn fend off the insects rootworm and European corn borer.

Huegerich’s father eagerly embraced the new genetically modified (GMO) seeds. They cost more, but he could save money on herbicides and pesticides. His yields and profits went up, helped in part by good weather and favorable market conditions. But as revenue rose and the years passed, trouble was looming.

“Five years ago the traits worked,” says the strongly built Huegerich, who followed in his father’s footsteps and planted GMO seeds. “I didn’t have corn rootworm because of the Bt gene, and I used less pesticide. Now, the worms are adjusting, and the weeds are resistant. Mother Nature adapts.”

Staring at a future of lower corn prices and higher inputs, Huegerich decided to experiment. Two years ago, he planted 320 acres of conventional corn and 1,700 with GMO corn. To his delight, the conventional fields yielded 15 to 30 more bushels per acre than the GMO fields, with a profit margin of up to $100 more per acre. And so in 2013, he upped the ante, ordering six varieties of conventional seeds for close to 750 acres and GMOs for his remaining acres.

Attachments for a skid loader sit stacked near the silos at Huegerich’s home base. After harvest, Huegerich has a busy winter planning for next year’s crop.

Hugerich Isn’t the only farmer retreating from GMO seeds. In pockets across the nation, commodity growers are becoming fed up with traits that don’t work like they used to. Not only are the seeds expensive (GMO corn can cost $150 more per bag than conventional corn), they’re also driving farmers to buy and apply more chemicals. During the growing season, Huegerich sprays both his conventional and his GMO corn twice with herbicides and twice with pesticides, despite the GMO’s theoretical resistance to rootworm. “It gives me peace of mind,” Huegerich says. Between 2001 and 2010, the consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch reports, total on-farm herbicide use increased 26 percent as weed resistance grew. Today, 61.2 million acres of cropland, including many of Huegerich’s, are plagued by glyphosate-resistant weeds.

Just as plants and animals adapt to environmental pressures, retailers respond to consumer pressure. This past March, Whole Foods announced that by 2018 it would label all its foods containing genetically engineered ingredients. In June, Target announced it would debut a line of foods, called Simply Balanced, that would be free of genetically modified ingredients by the end of 2014. And by late summer, more than 20 states were considering genetic modification label laws.

While consumer demand will ultimately propel more non-GMO grain into the market, more proximate factors can also influence what kinds of seeds farmers plant. For example, geography. Does the grower live close to the river systems that send the vast majority of the nation’s conventional grain to GMO-averse markets in Japan, South Korea and the EU? Wyatt Muse, a merchandiser for Clarkson Grain, which buys conventional and organic corn and soybeans, pays farmers a premium — up to $2 extra per bushel over the base commodity price of soybeans, $1 for corn — to not only grow the crop but also preserve its identity. (That is, keep it separate from genetically modified grain all the way from planting through harvest, storage and transportation.)

Huegerich doesn’t live near a dry mill that would pay him a premium for conventional corn, or a river that can move his product out into the world. But he does live within trucking distance of Blair, Nebraska, where a Cargill-owned plant converts his crop into plastic for customers who want a bio-based product but can’t get behind GMO corn. “I get a fifty-cent-per-bushel premium,” Huegerich says.

Aaron Bloom doesn’t farm near an outlet that pays a premium, but he still comes out ahead with conventional corn. A crop consultant, Bloom has been experimenting with non-GMO varieties for five years on land he works around Cherokee, Iowa. “We get the same or better yields, and we save money up front,” he says. And yet when he first suggests conventional seeds to clients, he sometimes gets pushback. “Guys think that you have to get out the cultivator” — which pierces the soil between rows of crops — “and kill your weeds by hand. No! You’re going out there with the planter anyway, just add your insecticide and your conventional herbicides.” Last year, not one of the roughly 30 farmers to whom Bloom sold non-GMO seeds had a bad harvest — despite unprecedented drought. “And I’ve got another 20 trying this year.”

Still, winning converts to conventional corn can be an uphill slog. Post-harvest, farmers face a barrage of TV and print ads touting the latest seed technology. There’s a subtler psychology at work, too. Farmers have close relationships with their seed dealers, who often live nearby and keep them company at local baseball games, PTA meetings or church. “You can’t break up with them,” Bloom says, noting that seed dealers work on commission. DuPont Pioneer, for example, offers him a non-GMO corn for $180 a bag, while Wyffels Hybrids sold the same for $115 a bag last year.

Why does Pioneer charge so much? Because it doesn’t want lower-priced conventional seed to lure customers away from GMOs. Bloom says a company dealer confessed: “We don’t want our farmers to buy it.”

From left: Rotary hoes neatly stacked in Huegerich’s shop; The corn combine shows some attitude.

Into this breach, smaller companies that specialize in non-GMO seed have leapt. West Des Moines–based eMerge Genetics has averaged 30 percent growth in each of the last five years. Sales at Spectrum Seed Solutions, based in Linden, Indiana, have doubled every year of the four it’s been in business. Its president, Scott Odle, believes that non-GMO corn could be 20 percent of the market in five years. After surveying 10 smaller companies focusing on conventional seed in the grain belt earlier this year, Ken Roseboro, editor of The Organic & Non-GMO Report, reported that each saw an increase in demand. “And I think it’s going to continue,” he says.

But are there more acres of conventional corn being planted, or are small seed companies simply filling a niche that larger companies have relinquished? It’s difficult to say. Jeffrey Neu, a Monsanto spokesperson, says, “While we offer some conventional hybrids, we continue to see the greatest demand for ‘traited’ products. We typically do not provide percentage or sales information.” Daniel Jones, a business manager at DuPont Pioneer, says sales of his company’s conventional seeds have “trended up,” but he declines to say by how much. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 88 percent of the corn planted in the nation in 2011 and 2012 was genetically modified; in 2013, the percentage rose to 90. Because the total acreage of corn is so huge — 97 million acres — it obscures the acreage planted by farmers like Huegerich and Bloom. “The growth is regional and local,” Wyatt Muse of Clarkson Grain says, “so it won’t show up in the national data.”

Aaron Bloom, a farmer and business consultant at Huegerich’s farm;

The big seed companies are carefully watching state legislatures, spending tens of millions of dollars to defeat proposed labeling laws and fielding calls from food companies concerned with how such laws could impact production agriculture. “If such laws create a demand at the farmer level, we’ll have to respond,” Pioneer’s Jones says, cautiously. “But we won’t lead the charge.” Chuck Hill, specialty products manager at AgriGold Hybrids, which sells both GMOs and hybrids, sounds a similarly wary note: “Whole Foods’ decision to label was not an earthshaker,” he insists. “The company was already serving that clientele. Now, if Walmart decided to label GM food, that would be a major chit.”

And yet this parallel seed economy is churning. The Non-GMO Project, which offers third-party verification and labeling for non-GMO products, has been inundated with requests from food purveyors for information about enrolling their products, and consumer spending on non-GMO-verified products rose from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion between 2011 and 2013. Companies that make non-GMO feed for animals, says Caroline Kinsman, communications manager for the Non-GMO Project, are experiencing “incredible demand.”

From left: A sign in the town of Breda, Iowa; Non-GMO corn shows its stuff at one of Huegerich’s farms

Sales at Hiland Naturals, which makes conventional and organic feeds for livestock, have more than doubled since it received Non-GMO Project verification last year. Most of Hiland’s customers are small farmers who sell eggs or meat at farmers markets and natural grocery stores. But many sell birds to Whole Foods and to institutions like colleges. Some of Hiland’s growth, owner Dan Masters says, comes from people wanting to know what they’re eating, some is from pending labeling laws and some is from “people who are tired of big corporations and big agriculture.”

As farmers across the grain belt were contemplating what they’d plant next spring, Masters was in talks with one of the nation’s largest animal feed producers to formulate a non-GMO-verified product. Should the deal come to fruition, it would more than double his company’s size and trigger the opening of several more mills.

“We need to get more farmers on board with conventional seed now,” Aaron Bloom says, anticipating the market’s growth. “We need to be innovative and grow toward the demand of the consumer.”

The article was produced in collaboration with the Food & Environment Reporting Network, an independent, non-profit news organization producing investigative reporting on food, agriculture and environmental health.

[via modern farmer]

Designer Genes: The 7 Most Common Genetically Modified Foods

Genetically modified material sounds a little bit like science fiction territory, but in reality, much of what we eat on a daily basis is a genetically modified organism (GMO). Whether or not these modified foods are actually healthy is still up for debate -- and many times, you don't even know that you are buying something genetically modified.

It is not required to label GMOs in the U.S. and Canada, but there are substantial restrictions, and even outright bans, on GMOs in many other countries.

However, by 2018, Whole Foods Market will start labeling GMOs in the U.S. This grocery chains' locations in Britain already provide GMO labeled products, as required by the European Union. According to the EU, GMO refers to plants and animals"in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination."

1. Corn

Almost 85 percent of corn grown in the U.S. is genetically modified. Even Whole Foods's brand of corn flakes was found to contain genetically modified corn. Many producers modify corn and soy so they are resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is used to kill weeds.

2. Soy

Soy is the most heavily genetically modified food in the country. The largest U.S. producer of hybrid seeds for agriculture, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, created a genetically engineered soybean, which was approved in 2010. It is modified to have a high level of oleic acid, which is naturally found in olive oil. Oleic acid is a monounsaturated omega-9 fatty acid that may lower LDL cholesterol (traditionally thought of as "bad" cholesterol) when used to replace other fats.

3. Yellow Crookneck Squash and Zucchini

Numbers of this GMO veggie are relatively small, but genetically modified yellow squash and zucchini can be found in two different species in the U.S. The species contain protein genes that protect against viruses. Just like their other GMO counterparts, you won't be able to tell the difference between non-GMO and GMO zucchini or squash.

4. Alfalfa

Cultivation of genetically engineered alfalfa was approved in 2011, and consists of a gene that makes it resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical without damaging the alfalfa.

5. Canola

Canola is genetically engineered form was approved in 1996, and as of 2006, around 90 percent of U.S. canola crops are genetically modified.

6. Sugar Beets

A very controversial vegetable, sugar beets were approved in 2005, banned in 2010, then officially deregulated in 2012. Genetically modified sugar beets make up half of the U.S. sugar production, and 95 percent of the country's sugar beet market.

7. Milk

To increase the quantity of milk produced, cows are often given rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone), which is also banned in the European Union, as well as in Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

Looking Forward: Do GMO Apples Give Us A Glimpse Of The Future?

GMO apples are currently under review by the USDA, and have been since 2010, when the company Okanagan Specialty Fruits, Inc., developed apple varieties that don't turn brown for an entire two weeks after slicing.

Polyphenol oxidase (PPO) is an enzyme that causes the browning of Golden Delicious and Granny Smith apples, and scientists are now able to deactivate the gene. Some studies do show stripping fruits of PPO can impact a plant's susceptibility to diseases. The creators say they simply want people to eat more apples and while activating this gene slows the process of browning, it's still a natural process.

It's clear that other parts of the world view GMOs as health threats, but it's still an ongoing debate here in America. For now, many GMOs have been deemed safe by organizations like the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

[via Food For Thought]

Grass-Fed vs. Feedlot Beef - What's the difference?

If asked, most people could not tell you where the meat on their plate came from. In fact, if they wanted to know, it would be darned difficult – if not impossible – to find out. On the other hand, while they may imagine that the beef cow they are eating was once frolicking on lush green pastures, the average American today would NOT want to meet their dinner while it was still standing.

No, Virginia, not all cows eat grass.

That lovely image of a herd of cattle happily munching away and contentedly chewing their cud is mostly a figment of your imagination. Over the last 70 years, the beef industry has evolved into an intense, industrial enterprise designed to put as much weight on animals as fast as possible and get the resulting meat to market as quickly as possible.

To do that, beef cattle – who are by nature ruminants (grass eaters) – are hustled off the pasture where they spent their first six months of life to spend the next six to eight months packed into confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) with no green pasture in sight. In those feedlots, they are fed grain – lots of grain – to bring them up to the target weight for slaughter. Since it takes as much as 7 pounds of grain (corn, barley, soybeans, and other grain) to develop a pound of meat and those cattle gain about 3 pounds a day, that’s a lot of feed.

At the same time, to keep the cattle gaining weight, they are given growth hormones and antibiotics. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 70% of all antibiotics used in the United States are fed to livestock. And, as many as six different growth hormones may be given to beef cattle, three of which occur naturally and three of which are synthetic.

Since those animals are eating 50 to 60 pounds of feed a day, a quick look at the source of that feed is important. Forty-four percent of the corn grown in the US is used for animal feed, and 86% of the corn planted in 2010 was bio-engineered varieties that contained insect- or herbicide-resistant genes (or both). Fifty-nine percent of the soybean harvest is crushed for oil, however the meal left over from the crush is used as animal feed. A whopping 94% of all soybeans grown are genetically engineered to be herbicide tolerant.

Meat and potatoes, please…

Researchers have linked serious health problems such as heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and certain types of cancer to heavy meat consumption. Americans eat more meat than ever before, and most of it is high in saturated fats.

We consume about 67 pounds of beef a year for each person – man, woman, and child. And those animals eat a lot of corn and other grain: most beef cattle are “finished” on grain before slaughter; only a very small percentage is entirely “grass-fed.”

Ah, back to that question – don’t cows eat grass? More and more farmers and ranchers are raising grass-fed beef on a natural diet consisting of fresh grasses, legumes, and other plants and allowing them to roam about.

Many are choosing to follow organic practices in their herd management, which are clearly healthier and more humane for the animals. The good news is that meat from those animals is free of antibiotics, steroids, hormones, pesticides, herbicides and other potentially toxic substances. The bad news is that it can take nearly two years to bring those animals to market on grass.

You Are What You Eat Eats Too

Studies have shown that an animal’s diet can have an impact on the nutritional content of the meat on the consumer’s table. Grass-fed meat has been shown to contain less fat, more beneficial fatty acids, and more vitamins and to be a good source of a variety of nutrients. According to a study published in the Journal of Animal Science in 2009, eating grass-fed beef provides many benefits to consumers.

Grass Fed Beef Benefits to Consumers

• Lower in total fat
• Higher in beta-carotene
• Higher in vitamin E (alpha-tocopherol)
• Higher in the B-vitamins thiamin and riboflavin
• Higher in the minerals calcium, magnesium, and potassium
• Higher in total omega-3s
• A healthier ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids (1.65 vs 4.84)
• Higher in CLA (cis-9 trans-11), a potential cancer fighter
• Higher in vaccenic acid (which can be transformed into CLA)
• Lower in the saturated fats linked with heart disease

Lower Fat – Meat from grass-fed cattle is much lower in fat, and therefore lower in calories. A 6-ounce steak from a grass-finished animal has almost 100 fewer calories than the same sized-piece from a grain-fed animal. If, like the average American, you eat about 67 pounds of beef a year, switch to grass-fed beef and you’ll save nearly 18,000 calories a year.

Omega-3 Fatty Acids – Omega-3 fatty acids are fats that are essential to human health. Sixty percent of the fatty acids in grass is omega-3, which is formed in the chloroplasts of green leaves. Grass-fed cattle can contain as much as two-to-four times more omega-3 fatty acids than grain-fed animals.

At the same time, a high ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids has been linked with an increased risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, allergies, depression, obesity, and autoimmune disorders. A ratio of four to one or lower is considered ideal, Grain-fed beef has a much higher ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids than wild game or grass-fed beef. In grass-fed beef the ratio is approximately 2 to 1, while the ratio in grain-fed beef is more than 14 to 1.

More Vitamins – In humans vitamin E is linked with la lower risk of heart disease and cancer. Meat from grass-fed cattle is higher in vitamin E.; as much as four times higher in vitamin E than meat from feedlot cattle.

Rich source of CLA – Meat from grass-fed animals is the richest known source of “conjugated linoleic acid” or CLA. Grass-fed cattle have been found to produce 2 to 5 times more CLA than cattle fed high grain feedlot diets. In laboratory animals, a diet containing even a small amount of CLA greatly reduced cancerous growths.

Shop Local for Grass Fed Meat

Finding grass fed meats in you community is getting much easier than it used to be as more and more small ranches are popping up across the USA. It's now common to find grass fed beef and lamb at local farmers markets. The best value is to buy the cow 'on the hoof' which means that you are buying the whole cow- bones, skin and all. The cow is then processed at a butcher and the individual cuts are delivered individually wrapped and labeled ready for your home freezer.

A growing trend among friends and family is sharing a whole cow (also known as cow-pooling, as in car-pooling). This is much easier for the rancher so he can pass the savings on to you. A 1/4 share of a whole grass fed cow usually results in between 150-250 pounds of finished beef depending on the breed and size of the cow.

[via Eat Local Grown]

10 American Foods that are Banned in Other Countries

Americans are slowly waking up to the sad fact that much of the food sold in the US is far inferior to the same foods sold in other nations. In fact, many of the foods you eat are BANNED in other countries. Below is a review of 10 American foods that are banned elsewhere.

Seeing how the overall health of Americans is so much lower than other industrialized countries, you can’t help but wonder whether toxic foods such as these might play a role in our skyrocketing disease rates.

#1: Farm-Raised Salmon

If you want to maximize health benefits from fish, you want to steer clear of farmed fish, particularly farmed salmon fed dangerous chemicals. Wild salmon gets its bright pinkish-red color from natural carotenoids in their diet. Farmed salmon, on the other hand, are raised on a wholly unnatural diet of grains (including genetically engineered varieties), plus a concoction of antibiotics and other drugs and chemicals not shown to be safe for humans.

This diet leaves the fish with unappetizing grayish flesh so to compensate, they’re fed synthetic astaxanthin made from petrochemicals, which has not been approved for human consumption and has well known toxicities. According to the featured article, some studies suggest it can potentially damage your eyesight. More details are available in yesterday’s article.

Where it’s banned: Australia and New Zealand

How can you tell whether a salmon is wild or farm-raised? The flesh of wild sockeye salmon is bright red, courtesy of its natural astaxanthin content. It’s also very lean, so the fat marks, those white stripes you see in the meat, are very thin. If the fish is pale pink with wide fat marks, the salmon is farmed.

Avoid Atlantic salmon, as typically salmon labeled “Atlantic Salmon” currently comes from fish farms. The two designations you want to look for are: “Alaskan salmon,” and “sockeye salmon,” as Alaskan sockeye is not allowed to be farmed. Please realize that the vast majority of all salmon sold in restaurants is farm raised.

So canned salmon labeled “Alaskan Salmon” is a good bet, and if you find sockeye salmon, it’s bound to be wild. Again, you can tell sockeye salmon from other salmon by its color; its flesh is bright red opposed to pink, courtesy of its superior astaxanthin content. Sockeye salmon actually has one of the highest concentrations of astaxanthin of any food.

#2: Genetically Engineered Papaya

Most Hawaiian papaya is now genetically engineered to be resistant to ringspot virus. Mounting research now shows that animals fed genetically engineered foods, such as corn and soy, suffer a wide range of maladies, including intestinal damage, multiple-organ damage, massive tumors, birth defects, premature death, and near complete sterility by the third generation of offspring. Unfortunately, the gigantic human lab experiment is only about 10 years old, so we are likely decades away from tabulating the human casualties.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

Unfortunately, it’s clear that the US government is not in a position to make reasonable and responsible decisions related to genetically engineered foods at this point, when you consider the fact that the Obama administration has placed former Monsanto attorney and Vice President, Michael Taylor, in charge of US food safety, and serious conflicts of interest even reign supreme within the US Supreme Court! That’s right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is also a former Monsanto attorney, but refuses to acknowledge any conflict of interest.

#3: Ractopamine-Tainted Meat

The beta agonist drug ractopamine (a repartitioning agent that increases protein synthesis) was recruited for livestock use when researchers found that the drug, used in asthma, made mice more muscular. This reduces the overall fat content of the meat. Ractopamine is currently used in about 45 percent of US pigs, 30 percent of ration-fed cattle, and an unknown percentage of turkeys are pumped full of this drug in the days leading up to slaughter. Up to 20 percent of ractopamine remains in the meat you buy from the supermarket, according to veterinarian Michael W. Fox.

Where it’s banned: 160 countries across Europe, Russia, mainland China and Republic of China (Taiwan)

Since 1998, more than 1,700 people have been “poisoned” from eating pigs fed the drug, and ractopamine is banned from use in food animals in no less than 160 different countries due to its harmful health effects! Effective February 11, 2013, Russia issued a ban on US meat imports, slated to last until the US agrees to certify that the meat is ractopamine-free. At present, the US does not even test for the presence of this drug in meats sold. In animals, ractopamine is linked to reductions in reproductive function, increase of mastitis in dairy herds, and increased death and disability. It’s also known to affect the human cardiovascular system, and is thought to be responsible for hyperactivity, and may cause chromosomal abnormalities and behavioral changes.

#4: Flame Retardant Drinks

If you live in the US and drink Mountain Dew and some other citrus-flavored sodas and sports drinks, then you are also getting a dose of a synthetic chemical called brominated vegetable oil (BVO), which was originally patented by chemical companies as a flame retardant.

BVO has been shown to bioaccumulate in human tissue and breast milk, and animal studies have found it causes reproductive and behavioral problems in large doses. Bromine is a central nervous system depressant, and a common endocrine disruptor. It’s part of the halide family, a group of elements that includes fluorine, chlorine and iodine. When ingested, bromine competes for the same receptors that are used to capture iodine. This can lead to iodine deficiency, which can have a very detrimental impact on your health. Bromine toxicity can manifest as skin rashes, acne, loss of appetite, fatigue, and cardiac arrhythmias.

Where it’s banned: Europe and Japan

According to the featured article:

“The FDA has flip-flopped on BVO’s safety originally classifying it as ‘generally recognized as safe’ but reversing that call now defining it as an ‘interim food additive’ a category reserved for possibly questionable substances used in food.”

#5: Processed Foods Containing Artificial Food Colors and Dyes

More than 3,000 food additives — preservatives, flavorings, colors and other ingredients — are added to US foods, including infant foods and foods targeted to young children. Meanwhile, many of these are banned in other countries, based on research showing toxicity and hazardous health effects, especially with respect to adverse effects on children’s behavior. For example, as reported in the featured article:

“Boxed Mac & Cheese, cheddar flavored crackers, Jell-O and many kids’ cereals contain red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6 and/or blue 2, the most popularly-used dyes in the United States. Research has shown this rainbow of additives can cause behavioral problems as well as cancer, birth defects and other health problems in laboratory animals. Red 40 and yellow 6 are also suspected of causing an allergy-like hypersensitivity reaction in children. The Center for Science in the Public Interest reports that some dyes are also “contaminated with known carcinogens.”

Where it’s banned: Norway and Austria. In 2009, the British government advised companies to stop using food dyes by the end of that year. The European Union also requires a warning notice on most foods containing dyes.

In countries where these food colors and dyes are banned, food companies like Kraft employ natural colorants instead, such as paprika extract, beetroot, and annatto. The food blogger and activist Vani Hari, better known as “Food Babe,” recently launched a Change.org petition2 asking Kraft to remove artificial dyes from American Mac & Cheese to protect American children from the well-known dangers of these dyes.

#6: Arsenic-Laced Chicken

Arsenic-based drugs are approved for use in animal feed in the US because they make animals grow quicker and make the meat appear pinker (i.e. “fresher”). The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has stated these products are safe because they contain organic arsenic, which is less toxic than the other inorganic form, which is a known carcinogen.

Where it’s banned: The European Union

The problem is, scientific reports surfaced stating that the organic arsenic could transform into inorganic arsenic, which has been found in elevated levels in supermarket chickens. The inorganic arsenic also contaminates manure where it can eventually migrate into drinking water and may also be causing heightened arsenic levels in US rice.

In 2011, Pfizer announced it would voluntarily stop marketing its arsenic-based feed additive Roxarsone, but there are still several others on the market. Several environmental groups have filed a lawsuit against the FDA calling for their removal from the market. In the European Union, meanwhile, arsenic-based compounds have never been approved as safe for animal feed.

#7: Bread with Potassium Bromate

You might not be aware of this, but nearly every time you eat bread in a restaurant or consume a hamburger or hotdog bun you are consuming bromide, as it is commonly used in flours. The use of potassium bromate as an additive to commercial breads and baked goods has been a huge contributor to bromide overload in Western cultures.

Where it’s banned: Canada, China and the EU

Bromated flour is “enriched” with potassium bromate. Commercial baking companies claim it makes the dough more elastic and better able to stand up to bread hooks. However, Pepperidge Farm and other successful companies manage to use only unbromated flour without any of these so-called “structural problems.” Studies have linked potassium bromate to kidney and nervous system damage, thyroid problems, gastrointestinal discomfort, and cancer. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies potassium bromate as a possible carcinogen.

#8: Olestra/Olean

Olestra, aka Olean, created by Procter & Gamble, is a calorie- and cholesterol-free fat substitute used in fat-free snacks like chips and French fries. Three years ago, Time Magazine3 named it one of the worst 50 inventions ever, but that hasn’t stopped food companies from using it to satisfy people’s mistaken belief that a fat-free snack is a healthier snack. According to the featured article:

“Not only did a 2011 study from Purdue University conclude rats fed potato chips made with Olean gained weight, there have been several reports of adverse intestinal reactions to the fake fat including diarrhea, cramps and leaky bowels. And because it interferes with the absorption of fat soluble vitamins such as A, D, E and K, the FDA requires these vitamins be added to any product made with Olean or olestra.”

Where it’s banned: The UK and Canada

#9: Preservatives BHA and BHT

BHA (butylated hydroxyanisole) and BHT (butylated hydroxytoluene) are commonly used preservatives that can be found in breakfast cereal, nut mixes, chewing gum, butter spread, meat, dehydrated potatoes, and beer, just to name a few. BHA is known to cause cancer in rats, and may be a cancer-causing agent in humans as well. In fact, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services, National Toxicology Program’s 2011 Report on Carcinogens, BHA “is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.” It may also trigger allergic reactions and hyperactivity, while BHT can cause organ system toxicity.

Where it’s banned: The UK doesn’t allow BHA in infant foods. BHA and BHT are also banned in parts of the European Union and Japan.

#10: Milk and Dairy Products Laced with rBGH

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is the largest selling dairy animal drug in America. RBGH is a synthetic version of natural bovine somatotropin (BST), a hormone produced in cows’ pituitary glands. Monsanto developed the recombinant version from genetically engineered E. coli bacteria and markets it under the brand name “Posilac.”

It’s injected into cows to increase milk production, but it is banned in at least 30 other nations because of its dangers to human health, which include an increased risk for colorectal, prostate, and breast cancer by promoting conversion of normal tissue cells into cancerous ones. Non-organic dairy farms frequently have rBGH-injected cows that suffer at least 16 different adverse health conditions, including very high rates of mastitis that contaminate milk with pus and antibiotics.

Where it’s banned: Australia, New Zealand, Israel, EU and Canada

“According to the American Cancer Society, the increased use of antibiotics to treat this type of rBGH-induced inflammation ‘does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear,’” 

Many have tried to inform the public of the risks of using this hormone in dairy cows, but their attempts have been met with overwhelming opposition by the powerful dairy and pharmaceutical industries, and their government liaisons. In 1997, two Fox-affiliate investigative journalists, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, attempted to air a program exposing the truth about the dangers of rBGH. Lawyers for Monsanto, a major advertiser with the Florida network, sent letters promising “dire consequences” if the story aired.

Despite decades of evidence about the dangers of rBGH, the FDA still maintains it’s safe for human consumption and ignores scientific evidence to the contrary. In 1999, the United Nations Safety Agency ruled unanimously not to endorse or set safety standards for rBGH milk, which has effectively resulted in an international ban on US milk.4 The Cancer Prevention Coalition, trying for years to get the use of rBGH by the dairy industry banned, resubmitted a petition to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, in January 2010.5 Although the FDA stubbornly sticks to its position that milk from rBGH-treated cows is no different than milk from untreated cows, this is just plain false and is not supported by science. The only way to avoid rBGH is to look for products labeled as “rBGH-free” or “No rBGH.”

[via Eat Local Grown, source Mercola]

Biotech Attack GMO Labeling in WA—Organic Brands Hide Behind Lobby Group

Proposition I-522, a citizen’s initiative on the ballot on November 5 in Washington state, would mandate clear labeling of genetically engineered (GE) ingredients on food packages.  It has become the latest battleground pitting consumer and farmer advocates against multi-billion-dollar agribusiness corporations.

Recent polling indicates strong support for the Washington state informational labeling measure. But a flood of money to fight the ballot initiative has rolled in from Monsanto, DuPont, and other biotechnology interests and food manufacturers, now totaling over $11 million, according to Washington state election records.

“Consumers might be surprised to find out that some of their favorite organic and natural brands, hiding behind their lobbyist, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, are contributing bushel baskets of cash towards thwarting the consumer’s right to know what is in their food in Washington,” says Mark Kastel, Codirector of The Cornucopia Institute.

Cornucopia has released an infographic designed to inform consumers and let them make purchasing decisions reflecting their values. Many organic and natural food manufacturers are financially supporting the GMO labeling effort. They and other proponents are identified in Cornucopia’s infographic along with the biotech and agribusiness concerns fighting the labeling effort.

Last year, a similar GMO labeling measure was narrowly defeated in California, with Monsanto and its allies pouring more than $46 million into their campaign and outspending labeling supporters by five to one. Many prominent organic and natural brands were outed in California by Cornucopia for their opposition to GMO food labeling.

Just recently, the powerful Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) publicly scrubbed its website of its members, a move thought by many to be an effort to mask which corporations/brands helped underwrite the $2.2 million already donated by the GMA against I-522. They haven’t, however, been able to remove this web archive detailing their membership.

“They are obviously trying to hide their membership,” says Trudy Bialic, Director of Public Affairs for PCC Natural Markets, a Seattle-based, member-owned grocery cooperative. PCC has been working on GMO issues since 1994 when rBGH — a genetically engineered growth hormone for dairy cattle — was a contentious issue.

Assessing the dollars fueling both campaigns, Bialic observes that “not one individual is listed as a contributor on the ‘No’ side, while the ‘Yes’ side is being funded by thousands of individuals.” PCC itself has contributed $198,344 in support of I-522.

GMA spokesman Brain Kennedy told Politico, a Washington, DC publication covering politics, that “GMA fully supports the No on 522 Campaign in Washington State, and will continue to support the campaign’s effort to defeat this costly, confusing and unnecessary proposal.”

Mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food at the state level is viewed as a watershed event by many industry observers, given the inaction on the popular proposal at the federal level. Monsanto, its biotech allies, and GMA in particular, have been credited for bottlenecking the federal labeling law.

“Just as we’ve observed in Europe, where labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is mandatory, we fully expect that, when given a choice, consumers will choose organic or non-GMO products,” said Mark A. Kastel, Codirector of the Wisconsin-based Cornucopia. “And the industrial food lobby is fully cognizant of this — that’s why they’re fighting like hell against this grassroots effort.”

One leading organic manufacturer that has been actively promoting and funding a “yes on I-522″ vote is Nutiva. “We support I-522 because everyone has a right to know what’s in our food,” says John W Roulac, Nutiva’s Founder and CEO. Roulac has been working hard to convince other corporate executives to step up as well. He has committed Nutiva to donating $75,000.

Other prominent commercial backers of state citizen initiatives, viewed as heroes in the organic movement, include Nature’s Path, the prominent cereal manufacturer, and the soap manufacturer, Dr. Bronner’s. Additional organizations throwing their financial weight behind the consumer’s right to know include the health website Mercola.com and the Organic Consumers Association.

The biggest single donor to the “No” campaign is Monsanto. The biotech giant has contributed $4.8 million — an amount greater than all of the funds collected by the right-to-know forces.

“Consumers are increasingly interested in ‘voting with their forks,’ and many want to support companies that share their values,” notes Jason Cole, a researcher for Cornucopia who compiled the data for the infographic. “We know that many organic and ‘natural’ brands, owned by corporate agribusiness, fought the California food labeling effort. We believe, until it is shown otherwise, that many of these same companies are likely clandestinely supporting a defeat of the Washington state effort by funneling their dollars through the Grocery Manufacturers Association. ”

MORE:

Other “Yes” vote campaign donors include Organic Consumer’s Fund, Health Resources, Presence Marketing, Food and Water Watch, Center for Food Safety, WashPIRG, GFA/Boulder Brands, Annie’s, Food Democracy Now, Amy’s Kitchen, Lundberg Family Farms, Clif Bar, CROPP Cooperative (Organic Valley), UNFI, Inc., Wehan Farms, Stonyfield Farm, Whole Foods, Diamond Foods, Earthbound Farms, Turtle Mountain, Environmental Working Group, Institute for Responsible Technology, Freeland Foods/Go Raw, Jimbo’s Natural Family Inc., Brad’s Raw Chips, Suja Life LLC, Van’s International Foods, Vital Choice Wild Seafood and Organics, Jobbertown Media, Wallaby Yogurt, Eden Foods, Attune Foods, Back to Nature, Barney and Co, Dale and Thomas Popcorn, Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Califia Farms LP, Mamma Chia, Mary’s Gone Crackers, Organic Foods Express, Wholesome Sweeteners, Good Earth Natural Foods, Straus Family Creamery, Full Circle Farm, Skagit Valley Food Coop, Springfield Creamery, Earth Island, Equal Exchange, The Natural Grocery, Traditional Medicinals, Nutritional Therapy Association, Rhythm Superfoods, Marlene’s Market and Deli, Café Press, Raw Foods International, Nature’s Best, Ben and Jerry’s, Intellicomp/Seasnax, Skagit Valley Food Co-op, Wisdom Natural Brands, Bragg Live Foods, Turtle Island, Good Karma, Organically Grown Company, FoodState Inc., Park Slope Food Coop, Endangered Species Chocolate, Sky Valley Foods, Glutino, Northbest Natural Products, Wild Brine, Ocean Beach Organic Food Coop, The Food Coop (Port Townsend, WA), Essential Living Foods, Scratch and Peck Feeds, Raven’s Journey, and Experience Health.

Major opponents of Washington’s food labeling initiative also include Bayer CropScience ($591,654), DuPont ($3,420,189), and Dow AgroSciences ($29,531).

[via Cornucopia]

Food Items Commonly Mistaken For 'Health Foods'

The food processing industry and its raw food supplier allies have been clever at marketing their products as healthy while attacking the foods they replace as unhealthy. And it has worked both ways.

Saturated fats including coconut oil and real butter were demonized as obesity producers and heart health hazards while trans-fatty acid hydrogenated vegetable oils and margarine were marketed as substitutes that prevented both obesity and heart attacks.

All were lies marketed without intervention from the the Federal Trade Commission (FTA) or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Yet both agencies are quick to jump on scientifically confirmed health claims from whole food providers such as those who grow and distribute cherries and walnuts (http://www.naturalnews.com/029698_censorship_FDA.html).

So we are forced to separate fact from fiction and see our way through the blizzard of lies and contradictions within the health foods field. As basic rules, moderation and different foods for different folks makes sense.

But marketing disinformation has vaulted questionable foods into undeserved health food status.

Foods to avoid that are marketed as health foods

Canola oil is not a healthy substitute for olive oil even if you can find an organic cold pressed version of it without GMO contamination. It's ubiquitous in processed foods and health food stores cafes because its cheap.

Up until the 1970s, there was no such thing as canola. They were originally only rapeseed plants that produced a highly toxic oil suitable for industrial purposes.

Through a nationally funded Canadian effort to stimulate its agricultural export commerce, the rapeseed was genetically engineered to remove most of its toxic erucic acid.

Dr. Baldur Stefansson and his team at the University of Manitoba were the early pioneers of plant genetic engineering by creating LEAR (Low Eucic Acid Rapeseed) in a lab in lieu of normal generational plant hybrid breeding.

The more marketable name Canola was synthesized from Canadian oil (http://www.naturalnews.com/029516_canola_oil_fraud.html).

Dr. Stefansson went on to join Monsanto to develop glyphosate resistant Roundup Ready canola seeds that have almost eliminated non-GMO canola from agriculture. (1)

Questioning soy is comparable to kicking a hornet's nest. It's pro and con camps are uncompromising. Here are some facts. Soy is not consumed as a meat or milk substitute in Asia. It's a moderately eaten side dish that is usually fermented.

Traditional Ayurveda medicine frowns on soy's digestibility unless it is fermented. Tempeh, natto, miso, and some soy sauces are fermented. Most soy is processed and GMO for starters. Roundup Ready soy plants can pass on the most toxic form of glyphosate herbicide ever.

Be wary and cautious with fish and other sea foods. There has already existed a lot of mercury and PBC contamination of seafood. That's been joined by BP's Gulf oil and Corexit contamination and Fukushima's nuclear disaster spilling into the Pacific.

Farmed fish and shrimp are akin to factory farmed beef and pork, full of antibiotics to keep overcrowded and poorly fed creatures from becoming diseased.

Here's a list of relative mercury contamination in wild fish (http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/walletcard.pdf).

Agave nectar is another hornet's nest. One side claims it's a traditionally used and naturally derived syrup from agave plants. The other side claims it's not traditional and that it's processed from the plant to leave out the fiber that would make its high fructose level less harmful.

It cannot be disputed that agave's fructose level is high, and the liver does have issues processing concentrated amounts of fructose beyond what normally appears in whole fruits.

Let's just say it would be wise to stick with raw organic honey, molasses, and organic maple syrup as sweet and healthy syrups.

[via Natural News, sources Green Cradle, Kimberly Snyder]

What You (and Your Customers) Should Know About GMOs

In recent years, people worldwide have grown increasingly attuned to genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. Nearly 2 million people participated in a global non-GMO “March against Monsanto” last May. More than 20 states now have GMO labeling legislation in the works. And in a game-changing move, in March 2013, Whole Foods Market announced that by 2018 all items sold in its stores must include GMO labeling. “We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know,” said co-CEO Walter Robb.

But for many of us, GMOs are still a mystery. What are they? How do they impact our health and environment? And what’s being done to label them? Here’s a quick overview of GMOs from seed to plate.

Made in a lab

There’s little argument over what genetic modification is: Scientists remove a gene from one organism and transfer that gene to a different organism. Unlike traditional methods, where farmers might breed plants from the same species to make a stronger plant, GM technology makes it possible to transfer any gene from any organism into a different one.

For example, Bt corn, developed in 1996, contains a gene from soil bacteria that’s toxic to insects. Scientists first isolate the desired bacterium DNA. “They then use a ‘gene gun’ to shoot [the bacteria] genes into a Petri dish full of corn embryos,” explains Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology projects at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “They hope a bit of DNA randomly gets through the corn cell membrane. If it does, scientists take that embryo and grow a plant from it.” The resulting plant expresses the gene—in Bt’s case, an insecticide—in every one of its cells, enabling the corn itself to kill bugs. Needless to say, this scenario would never occur in nature—but as of 2012, Bt corn makes up 67 percent of all American corn acreage.

Spread in a field

Even more widespread than Bt corn are herbicide-tolerant crops that survive glyphosate, the weed killer known as Roundup. (Fittingly, these crops are called Roundup Ready.) Companies that manufacture Roundup Ready corn, cotton, and soybeans claim these crops are the solution to the world’s food problems, insisting that the GMO versions have higher yields, benefit farmers and the environment, and reduce herbicide use.

Anti-GMO activists disagree. “When [Roundup Ready] technology first came onto the market in 1996, most farmers had excellent weed control with only one herbicide application per crop,” says Chuck Benbrook, a research professor at Washington State University who studies genetically engineered crops. “But by 2000, the first Roundup tolerant weeds started to emerge in fields and were surviving a low application rate.” Fighting these progressively more resilient weeds is a snowballing struggle because farmers must incrementally up herbicide use. Since GMOs were adopted, farmers have increased herbicide use by 7 percent.

This worries Benbrook. “The sheer volume of glyphosate has led to soil changes that reduce a plant’s ability to draw up various mineral micronutrients [like zinc, chromium, and manganese],” he says. This also renders plants vulnerable to bacterial and fungal attacks. The downside? Lower crop yields, less nutrition, and more fungicide spraying.

Plus, a whole host of negative effects result from massive Roundup use. Most recently, a study published in the scientific journal Entropy suggests that long-term exposure to glyphosate residues could be linked to a suite of human health issues, including gastrointestinal disorders, Alzheimer’s, and certain cancers. As weeds continue to become even more resistant, heavier glyphosate use and more precarious herbicides (such as 2,4-D, an ingredient in Agent Orange) lurk on the horizon. Frighteningly, these higher-risk chemicals have a nasty habit of drifting.

Just label them

The Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates that a whopping 75 percent to 80 percent of conventional processed foods now contain GMOs. Even foods that don’t list corn, soy, or canola as a main ingredient can still be GMO-laden because of sneaky additives like ascorbic acid, maltodextrin, sugar from beets or corn, lactic acid, and more.“Products with seemingly low risk ingredients often have ones that could contain GMOs,” says Courtney Pineau, assistant director for the Non-GMO Project, a certification organization. “It’s surprising where GMOs can pop up, and it’s changing all the time.” Translation: If you’re not buying USDA Organic (which, by definition, excludes GMO ingredients), you’re probably eating GMOs.

Non-GMO proponents insist that labeling foods containing GMOs is paramount. While nearly 60 countries, including Australia, Japan, and the EU mandate GMO labeling, the United States does not, so you have no way to know what you’re eating or feeding to your family.

That doesn’t sit well with a lot of people. Since Whole Foods announced its labeling initiative, the Non-GMO Project has fielded a surge of inquiries from natural manufacturers wishing to attain the Non-GMO Project Verified seal. “A lot of this interest has to do with the impacts of the Right to Know movement, efforts from the Just Label It campaign, state initiatives, and increased outreach and education from Non-GMO Project Verified companies,” says Pineau.

The FDA maintains its position that GMOs are harmless, claiming there’s no evidence to substantiate adverse health effects. But the opposite is also true: There’s inconclusive evidence to show that they’re safe. According to a growing base of scientists, food experts, and citizens, you have the right to know what’s in your food and to choose or avoid products based on that knowledge.

[via NewHope360, Delicious Living]

What do you know about GMOs? [Infographic]

A genetically modified organism (GMO) is an organism altered to incorporate genes of a desirable trait. Information on GMO labeling has been recently covered in the news, specifically regarding California's Prop 37 and has been a trending topic amongst the blogging community, but what do you really know about them? Luckily the folks over at Visualism have put together an infograph for you to test your knowledge on GMOs. And while barely scratching the surface on the entire GMO debate, we think it's a good starting point and worth the share.

Chefs Back Measure on Labeling G.M.O.’s

By Stephanie Strom, Diner's Journal, New York Times

Alice Waters / Laura Morton for The New York Times 

More than 700 of the nation’s chefs and professional foodies, from prominent names like David Bouley to up-and-comers like the chef Bryant Terry of Oakland, have lined up to support a California ballot measure that would require food companies to label products containing genetically engineered ingredients.

“We’re talking about the provenance of food, and there’s nothing more important to chefs like me,” said Alice Waters, the founder of Chez Panisse in Berkeley, Calif., and legendary proponent of locally grown foods. “We need to know where our food comes from and how it’s produced, who produces it. That’s the bedrock of what we do.”

Ms. Waters said she initially thought she needed to do no more than vote “yes” for the ballot measure, Proposition 37, when she went to her polling place on Nov. 6. But a visit to Sonoma County from Carlo Petrini, the founder of the slow food movement, convinced her that she needed to become more active.

“He had come to talk about Slow Food and the change in leadership, but the first thing he started talking about was Prop 37,” Ms. Waters said, referring to the nonprofit Mr. Petrini founded in 1989 to nurture the movement. “He talked about Europe looking to the vote in California and how we needed to take this on, and I decided then that I needed to do whatever I could.  I needed to get active.”

So she sent out an e-mail late Friday night, asking chefs she knew around the country to lend their support to the campaign to get the ballot measure passed. By Monday morning, 100 chefs had signed up, and 200 more quickly signed on once word got out on Twitter and other social networks.

On Tuesday, Mr. Bouley became the 516th chef to sign onto the cause.

“Whether it’s calorie labeling in chain restaurants or chefs putting on their menus what farm they bought the lamb from, people want to know more about their food and where it comes from,” said Peter Hoffman, chef and founder of the now-closed Savoy, a farm-to-table pioneer in SoHo, and the Back 40 restaurants. “So this isn’t about whether G.M.O. is right or wrong, it’s about transparency. And when someone opposes transparency, what does it tell you?”

Mr. Hoffman noted that avoiding foods with genetically engineered ingredients is becoming harder and harder. For instance, he said he recently learned that most white vinegar sold in supermarkets comes from corn and thus is likely to be genetically modified.

Dan Barber, the executive chef and an owner of the Blue Hill restaurants, joked that he himself engages in genetic engineering, together with his partners at the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, a nonprofit farm and education center in Pocantico Hills, N.Y., that supplies some of the ingredients used in the dishes he makes at his restaurants.

The current menu, for instance, features a new, proprietary variety of squash that he and his partners at the farm have grown by cross-breeding conventional squashes. “That sometimes results in some outrage from customers initially until we explain what we’re doing,” Mr. Barber said.
But he makes a distinction between what he is doing and what the food and agribusiness companies that have poured tens of millions of dollars into opposing the ballot measure are doing. “They are inserting genes at will, sometimes from completely different species, and creating things in a lab that would never occur in nature,” Mr. Barber said. “We don’t support that.”

[via: New York Times]