Top 5 Popular GMO Foods to Avoid

As you’ve already known, GMO foods are extremely unsafe because of the countless health risks and life-threatening diseases that they can cause in the long run. Even if consumers are now more aware about the negative effects of GMOs, greedy manufacturers still continue to produce and sell them to this day. They certainly won’t be stopping anytime soon, therefore it’s up to us to be more meticulous when it comes to buying safer foods.

Several studies have found that sugar beets, soy, canola, cotton, and corn are the top 5 crops that are often genetically-modified. These popular crops are severely altered and contain traces of pesticide that can cause major health problems like blood cancer, liver toxicity, kidney failure, gut inflammation, or even death.

What’s really scary is that these GMO crops are listed as innocent ingredients on many commercial products. They’re disguised in the form of brown sugar, fructose, glucose, modified starch, vegetable oil, and the like. So you really need to read the labels carefully to evade these creepy GMO products.

Get more facts about GMOs and how you can successfully avoid them in this special infographic below. Remember to share this online so you can help spread the word about GMO foods!

[via Home & Garden America]

8 Beers That Contain GMO’s Or Other Harmful Chemicals

Here are the 8 beers that are commonly found in bars in United States that you should stop drinking immediately.

Many of us choose what we eat very carefully, or at least dedicate our minimum attention to it. But when it comes to drinks, especially alcoholic beverages, we do little to make the best decisions for our health. Which is a HUGE mistake. All the work for your body can be ruined in a weekend out. While foods and non alcoholic beverages are required to list their ingredients and are monitored by the FDA, beer does not belong in either. Alcohol industry had lobbied for years to avoid labeling its ingredients. Some to protect its recipes, but most – to hide harmful ingredients.

Here’s some harmful ingredients that are commonly found in beer:

• GMO Corn Syrup
• GMO Corn
• High Fructose Corn Syrup
• Fish Bladder
• Propylene Glycol
• Monosodium Glutamate (MSG)
• Natural Flavors
• GMO Sugars
• Caramel Coloring
• Insect-Based Dyes
• Carrageenan
• BPA
• & lots more!

1. NEWCASTLE BROWN ALE

The Newcastle beer has been found to contain caramel coloring. Class 3 and 4 caramel coloring is made from ammonia, which is classified as a carcinogen. While alcohol is a carcinogen itself, drinking it in moderation may decrease your chances at developing cancer. However, more added carcinogens will have the opposite effect. “The one and only” beer with extra cancer causing qualities.

2. BUDWEISER

One of the most popular beers, or most advertised is Budweiser. Budweiser contains genetically modified (GMO) corn. In 2007, Greenpeace discovered experimental GMO rice in Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser) beer.

3. CORONA EXTRA

Corona’s commercials were always so peaceful and relaxing. That is until I found out that the beer contains GMO Corn Syrup and Propylene Glycol. Propylene Glycol is controversial, and is said to may be potentially harmful to your health.

4. MILLER LITE

This is another very popular beer in America that contains GMOs. Miller Lite contains GMO corn and corn syrup. It’s “GMO time”.

5. MICHELOB ULTRA

Less popular but still readily available Michelob beer, should be eliminated from your choices. This beer has been found to contain a genetically modified sweetener (GMO dextrose).

6. GUINNESS

Guinness is often praised for it’s smoothness.  However, several investigations proved that Guinness ingredients are quite disturbing. The beer contains isinglass, an ingredient which comes from fish bladder and high fructose corn syrup has been long banned from many stores and drinks.

Update: Good news! We’ve contacted Guinness and they have stated that they no longer use high fructose corn syrup in any of their beers.

7. COORS LIGHT

Coors light is a drink that is very popular at bars and among college students.  Mostly because its cheap. The beer contains GMO corn syrup.

8. PABST BLUE RIBBON

Pabst Blue Ribbon contains GMO corn and GMO corn syrup.

HEALTHY BEER ALTERNATIVES

So when it comes to beer you have to be very careful. Your best option is to find a microbrewery that you can trust. As with everything, try to avoid cheap, low-quality products. Bars may offer Coors Light, Miller Lite or Budweiser specials, but they are cheap for a reason. The rest of the world is banning GMOs everywhere, while USA is lagging years behind, and only several states offer GMO labeling laws. Choose organic beer. Beers that contain 100% organic labels, have to have ingredients that are all 100% organic. While an “organic” label just means 95% of it will be organic.  European beer is most likely to be safe from GMO ingredients but unfortunately, most other beer contains GMO artificial ingredients, stabilizers, grains and preservatives, plus, HFCS. Check out this List of New Organic Beers for 2014

GMO FREE BEERS

Organic Beers (Unpasteurized & Unfiltered)

• Wolaver’s – all beers
• Lamar Street – Whole Foods label (brewed by Goose Island)
• Bison – all beers
• Dogfish Head (organic when ingredients available)
• Fish Brewery Company – Fish Tale Ales
• Lakefront Brewery – Organic ESB
• Brooklyn – (organic when ingredients are available)
• Pinkus – all beers
• Samuel Smiths – Samuel Smiths Organic Ale
• Wychwood – Scarecrow Ale

Non-Organic Beers (Unpasteurized & Unfiltered)

• Sierra Nevada – all choices
• Duck Rabbit – Brown Ale, Porter, Amber Ale, Milk Stout
• Dogfish Head- 60 Minute IPA, Shelter Pale Ale, Chicory Stout
• Shipyard – Summer Brew
• Victory Brewery – Whirlwind
• North Coast – Blue Star
• Bridgeport – IPA (Bottle conditioned)
• Ayinger – all choices
• Royal Oak – Pale Ale
• Fraziskaner – Hefeweisse and Dunkel Weisse
• Weihenstephaner – Hefe Weissbier
• Maisel’s – Weisse
• Hoegaarden – Belgian Wit

Other

• Heineken
• Steamwhistle
• Amstel Light
• Duchy Original Ale Organic
• Mill Street Brewery
• Fuller’s Organic
• Nelson Organic Ale
• Natureland Organic

SHARE THIS WITH FELLOW BEER DRINKERS

It’s important to expose companies that use harmful ingredients in our products. This information is hidden from the public with millions of dollars of false advertising, laws, etc. You can always vote with your money. As this information about GMO beers spreads, we will see a decrease in production of these beers and the companies may eliminate the harmful ingredients altogether. Most importantly, when you hang out with your friends, you will be able to share beer that’s more delicious and healthier.

[via Organic Shift]

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

10 Apps to Help You Eat GMO Free

As the struggle for GMO labeling rages on, app developers are taking matters into their own hands. By creating apps that allow consumers to determine exactly what is in the products that they buy, these developers are giving you total freedom of choice. These apps all have multiple features for identifying different types of ingredients, which means installing a combination of apps will keep you better informed. These ten apps all identify GMO products, among other ingredients, so you can control exactly what you choose to have in your diet.

• Non-GMO Project Shopping Guide – As it says on the can, this app provides consumers with a guide to shopping non-GMO. The Non-GMO Project’s Product Verification Program is a collaboration of a number of corporations whose aim is to help consumers make more informed choices in their purchases. The guide is completely free and is periodically updated with new contributions.
• Healthy Food, Allergens, GMOs & Nutrition Scanner – This Nutrition Scanner costs $3.99 and allows you to quickly determine exactly what is in the food you are shopping for. The scanner reads food labels and returns information on nutrition, ingredients additives and whether the product contains any GMOs. You don’t need to wonder which ingredients are dangerous, either, as the app has a caution rating for potentially undesirable contents.
• Buycott – If you are passionate about supporting companies that you believe have ethical practices, Buycott will help you stick to your principles. The app can trace food items back through the production chain, keeping you informed of every company involved in bringing the item to the supermarket shelf. The free app also provides contact details for each company, so you can voice your concerns or support for any given product.
• True Food – For conscientious consumers, True Food provides a real-time guide to shopping non-GMO. Every day the app will update with new alerts, news and tips on how to avoid GMO products, and where to find suitable alternatives. With over 70% of food products in the U.S. containing GMOs, this free app is definitely worth installing on your iPhone.
• ShopNoGMO – With 23 food categories that contain no GMOs, this free app gives you the power to decide which products you want to feed your family. The app is not limited to when you shop, however, as there is also a useful feature to help you avoid GMOs when dining out. Besides information on GMOs, there are helpful tips on sourcing organic foods and identifying other potentially unhealthy ingredients.
• GMO Checker – You can use this app to quickly identify products that are organic, vegan, gluten free and GMO free. GMO Checker uses a simple search function, which returns results with a color-coded key that tells you whether the product contains ingredients from the category list. While the app has a simple interface, it does cost $3.99, so it is not the cheapest option on the market.
• ipiit, The Food Ambassador – ipiit is a completely collaborative app with a database that is constantly growing due, in part, to user contributions. The database contains over 210,000 food products, with information on Gluten, Lactose, HFCS, GMO and much more. Users can set up their own preferences, making it easier to find the foods that match your needs. Rating foods on this free app will help keep the community informed so everyone can share in promoting healthier food choices.
• Chemical Maze – Whether you are concerned about what’s in your food, cosmetics or pet products, Chemical Maze will help keep you informed. You can filter results by category, effects, origin or symptoms, depending on what you want to find out about a product. This is the free addition of the app, however, there is also a paid edition with added features.
• Barcode and PLU Label Reader – Although this app is a Barcode and PLU reader, you have to manually enter the codes. With that said, the app does provide a lot of useful information that will help you purchase the healthiest products and avoid GMOs. Barcode and PLU Label Reader costs $1.99 and has a 4+ user rating on the iTunes store.
• Fruit Checker – A PLU label reader for fruits and vegetables, Fruit Checker will confirm whether products are certified organic, conventionally grown or genetically modified. In some cases the app will tell you where the product was grown, too. The app is useful, but limited for the price-tag of $0.99.

[via The Food Revolution Network]

The Truth About Soy and Tofu

I cook for a mostly dairy-free family, and when I browse for recipes for creamy dishes without the dairy, I often come across some that rely on soy-based foods such as tofu. They sound tempting, but despite the convenience, I rarely eat unfermented soy.

For the uninitiated, soy falls into two broad categories, fermented and unfermented. Unfermented soy includes soy milk, soy nuts, tofu and soy infant formula; fermented soy includes tamari, miso, natto, tempeh, pickled tofu and various fermented pastes used in a variety of Asian cooking techniques. Knowing the difference will help you navigate recipes — and understand why I avoid the unfermented kind. Here's my rationale:

1. Soy is generally genetically modified.
There are a lot of good reasons to avoid genetically modified foods, and soy is one of the most common crops to be genetically modified. Somewhere upwards of 90 percent of the soybean crop is genetically modified. If you want to avoid GMOs, than you will need to avoid most soy products. (I buy organic soy sauce/tamari and natto, for this reason).

2. Unfermented soy contains high amounts of anti-nutrients
Unfermented soy includes anti-nutrients, such as phytate, which can literally block your body from absorbing nutrients. While soy milk may be high in calcium, the anti-nutrients in it can mean that you don’t get the benefits. You can read some of the research I did on the subject of the anti-nutrient, phytic acid.

3. A diet heavy in soy could lead to hormonal imbalances (which could lead to hormonal-driven cancers)
When I first started researching anti-cancer diets years ago, I read a book by a doctor who researched and conducted trials in prevention of breast cancer. One of the chapters in his book presented the sometimes confusing and conflicting research on soy and breast cancer. According to him, too much soy seems to increase your chances of getting breast cancer, and just a little soy in your diet increases it as well. According to him, you had to get the perfect medium in the middle for anti-cancer effects. Good luck on that.

Since then, other research has continued to feed concern regarding soy and cancer. Just one example out of many is a study that showed that women who start to eat soy as adults may derail their cancer treatment. Soy contains isoflavones that mimic estrogen, which some research says is helpful in preventing hormone-driven cancers, while other research shows it can increase your chances of getting cancer. Using soy to prevent cancer is a gamble since there are so many conflicting conclusions from studies.

So what to eat?
I personally follow the Weston A Price Foundation’s guidelines for eating soy. I only eat organic soy (to avoid pesticides and GMOs) and fermented soy (to reduce anti-nutrients) in small amounts. I enjoy tamari (gluten-free soy sauce), miso, natto, and every once in awhile, tempeh.

If you're interested in reading more about these topics, check out these resources, which I found helpful:

• Soy Isoflavone Studies  
• The Whole Soy Story 
• Soy can damage your health

[via Mother Nature Network]

Pesticides and Potatoes: 3rd Grader’s Science Project Convinces Us to Choose Organic

Watch out world, the next generation of organic food activists is getting started young. Meet Elise. She’s here to show you through her 3nd grade science project (put together with the help of her grandmother) that potatoes and sweet potatoes may look healthy, but if they’re not organic, they could be doused with a scary, tumor-causing chemical called bud nip.

Sweet Elise did an experiment to see how long it would take a sweet potato to sprout in water. She just couldn’t wait for her tater to grow vines, but after waiting three weeks with one sweet potato and another three weeks with another sweet potato, she saw zero growth. When she asked the produce man at the grocery store why her sweet potato was sprout-free, she was informed that these conventional sweet potatoes will never grow vines because of the use of the chemical bud nip.

Bud nip, also called chlorpropham, is a sprout inhibitor that’s applied a month after harvest. Bud nip is not allowed in organic farming, which is obvious from the other two sprout-friendly sweet potatoes she uses later on in the video. It’s definitely not something that you want on your fruits and vegetables because it gets into the meat of the crop as well. And it can poison laboratory animals by causing inflammation of the stomach and intestinal bleeding. Long term exposure can also cause tumors. Bud nip can be found on potatoes, kale, peaches, broccoli and other common fruits and vegetables. Though from my research, it isn’t used on sweet potatoes commonly like it is potatoes.

Watch the video:

via Organic Authority

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]

Anti-GMO Coalition: If the Government Won’t Label, We Should Do it Ourselves

 
We’re still figuring out what exactly happened with Washington’s I-522 labeling bill, but considering some recent news that Big Food plans to make sure GMO labeling cannot happen at the federal level, we’ve got a lot of work to do to make sure people know what they’re consuming!

In light of these and other events surrounding the struggle to fight GMO cultivation and anti-labeling proponents, GMOInside.org, a coalition of organizations fighting for the GMO “right to know,” has made a novel suggestion: If the companies won’t label GMO foods, we should do it ourselves!

GMO Inside has made the distinction that it’s illegal for us to label foods in the grocery store. Meaning that, if we haven’t already bought it and removed it from the store, then it’s hands-off.

But, the organization encourages, if it’s in your home or your family members’ snack shelf or present at a community event or in the office, it’s fair game (though we can’t guarantee you won’t get swatted by your co-workers).

GMO Inside has provided colored labels indicating traditional “caution” images indicating that the labeled food may contain genetically engineered ingredients.

The goal, GMO Inside says, is to raise awareness. If you label your co-worker’s lunch for them, they may just ask what you know about GMOs. And the more people that know, the more ground we gain in the fight to label GMO products.

[via One Green Planet]

Washington State Voters Reject Labeling of GMO Foods

The initiative would have required labels on foods containing genetically engineered ingredients.

(Photo: Robyn Beck, AFP/Getty Images)

Washington state voters on Tuesday rejected an initiative that would have required foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled.

The vote was 54.8% opposed to labeling and 45.2% in favor of it.

Had it passed, Initiative 522 would have made the state the first in the nation to require such labeling.

The initiative was the most expensive in state history, though it was largely fought by out-of-state interests.

The No on 522 campaign set a record for fundraising, bringing in $22 million in donations according to The Seattle Times. Just $550 came from Washington residents, according to the newspaper. The top five contributors were the Grocery Manufacturers Association, Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Dow AgroSciences and Bayer CropScience.

The largest donor to the pro-labeling campaign were California-based Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps and the Center for Food Safety in Washington, D.C. However the initiative garnered almost 30% of its funding from individuals in Washington state, the Times reported.

Food industry ads claimed that the initiative would raise food prices. Labels would mislead consumers into thinking that products that contain genetically engineered ingredients are "somehow different, unsafe or unhealthy," said Brian Kennedy of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a food industry group based in Washington, D.C.

The Yes on 522 campaigns emphasized consumers right to know what's in their food.

The Washington initiative was part of an ongoing national fight by those opposed to genetically engineered crops to push for labeling. A similar bruising $37 million battle in California in 2012 went against labeling advocates. The final vote was 51.4% opposed and 48.6% in favor.

"Sooner or later, one of these is going to pass. It's only a matter of time. At some point the industry is going to get tired of pouring this kind of money into these campaigns," said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition at New York University.

She said she doesn't believe there's anything dangerous about genetically engineered foods but is concerned about corporate control of the food supply.

Genetically engineered crops have a gene from another plant inserted into them to give them some ability they didn't have before.

There are two common genetic modifications. One is for herbicide tolerance: Plants are given a gene that protects them from harm when a farmer sprays them with herbicides to kill weeds. The other is a gene from a soil bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis that allows plants to produce their own insecticide.

A huge proportion of commodity crops grown by U.S. farmers are genetically engineered: 97% of the nation's sugar beets, 93% of the soybeans, 90% of the cotton and 90% of the feed corn for animals, according to the 2013 figures from the Department of Agriculture.

About 60% of the papaya grown in the United States, all in Hawaii, has been genetically engineered to allow it to withstand the ringspot virus, which virtually wiped out papaya production in the islands in the 1980s, according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.

Very small amounts of genetically engineered zucchini, yellow squash and sweet corn are also sold in the United States.

The Food and Drug Administration does not require foods containing genetically engineered ingredients to be labeled because it considers them "functionally equivalent" to conventionally grown crops.

[via USA Today]

What GMO Labeling Means To You (Infographic)

If the old adage is true and you are what you eat, would you want to be a genetically mutated ear of corn?

Although that paints a pretty terrifying picture, the ethics behind Genetically Modified Organisms (better known as GMOs) are more complicated than one might think. Some studies show that these products are safe to eat and can actually cut down on the use of environmentally-harmful pesticides, while another group of scientists and activists believe that we don’t know enough about GMOs to call them safe for people OR the environment.

Regardless of what stance you take on GMOs, many people can agree on one thing: Consumers should be given a choice whether or not they want to eat genetically modified foods. Unfortunately, thanks to a lack of labeling laws, very few Americans currently have that right.

On November 5, Washington state residents will vote on a new GMO labeling law. Named I-522, this initiative could be a historic development in the progress of GMO transparency. However, some roadblocks have the potential to derail the law.

To find out how GMOs and GMO labeling could affect you, check out the infographic below.

[via Huffington Post]

The Power of Labeling: Preserving & Building a Non-GMO Food Supply

When California Proposition 37 failed to pass at the polls last November, all of us who advocate for the right to know were profoundly disappointed. However, the measure, which would have mandated labeling of foods containing genetically engineered ingredients, garnered more than 6 million votes, and was actually a great case of "losing forward." Despite outspending of nearly 5 to 1, the initiative lost by just 2 percentage points and attracted a significant amount of national media attention.

Inspired by California's effort, nearly 40 states are now working on mandatory labeling of GMOs (genetically modified organisms). In June, Connecticut and Maine became the first states to pass mandatory GMO labeling -- though in both cases additional states need to pass similar measures in order for the laws to take effect.

This November, voters in Washington State will have a chance to pass I-522, a similar but improved version of the Prop 37 legislation. Since January, organizers in California have been sharing lessons learned with their peers in Washington, giving I-522 a solid foundation for success. As a state with an economy focused on exports--a lot of which go to countries with GMO bans--Washington is uniquely concerned about GMO contamination. With the looming threat of genetically engineered apples, salmon, and wheat--all quintessential Washington crops--even conventional farmers in the state are becoming concerned about the economic impact of GMOs.

The non-GMO movement is, at its core, about the right to know. Because GMOs are unstable and experimental, they are subject to mandatory labeling in more than 60 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, Russia, China, and all of the European Union. More research is needed to understand the long-term health and environmental implications of genetic engineering, but in the United States that research is essentially being conducted on the public, without consent.

Despite biotechnology industry promises, none of the GMO traits currently on the market offers increased yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any consumer benefit. Meanwhile, a growing body of evidence connecting GMOs to health problems and environmental damage has triggered a massive public backlash.

At the federal level, the Just Label It campaign has collected more than 1.3 million signatures on a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) petition demanding mandatory GMO labeling. Although the FDA has yet to respond, this is more than twice as many signatures as have ever been received on any food petition in the agency's history.

Americans are also voting in record numbers with their wallets. The Non-GMO Project--a nonprofit organization that oversees North America's only third-party non-GMO verification, including ongoing ingredient testing--has quickly seen its label become the fastest growing in the natural products industry. With annual sales of well over $3.5 billion, Non-GMO Project Verified products are now found everywhere from independent food co-ops to big-box retailers.

When the Non-GMO Project was founded in 2007, mandatory labeling efforts had almost completely stalled. In that void, the project's strategy was to leverage the power of the marketplace, using supply and demand principles to preserve and build a non-GMO food supply. When it began, skeptics far outweighed supporters; many said it would be impossible to get a critical mass of food companies to voluntarily adopt such rigorous standards. Six years later, the progress is astonishing. More than 1,000 brands are now enrolled in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program, and more than 14,000 products have successfully earned the verification.

This market demand and the corresponding rekindling of mandatory labeling efforts clearly show Americans are not willing to remain in the dark when it comes to the food we're eating and feeding to our loved ones. The momentum will continue until we have the same right to know about GMOs in our food as our peers around the world.

Enjoy Halloween without Frightful GMOs

GMOs are the scariest elements of Halloween, so here are some tips from The Non-GMO Project on how to ward off frightful GMOs this year!

Choose Non-GMO Project Verified Treats for the Trick-or-Treat Basket

• Nature’s Path Crispy Treats
• Endangered Species chocolates
• Bakery on Main granola bars
• Funky Monkey snacks
• Simply Fruit
• HomeFree cookies
• Yogavive snacks
• Licious Organics snacks
• EnviroKids
• Pro Bar snack bars
• Pure Organics snacks
• Righteously Raw bars
• Tasty Brand snacks
• Theo Chocolates
• Bites of Bliss

Non-GMO Treats & Treasures

Halloween is meant to be fun—so get creative as you look for new ways to celebrate with the kids in your life.

• Stickers
• Beeswax crayons
• Non-GMO Project Verified treats
• Polished rocks
• Friendship bracelets
• Coupons
• Seed packets
• Homemade playdough

GMOs and Children—What You Need to Know

What are GMOs?

GMOs, or “genetically modified organisms,” are plants or animals created through the gene splicing techniques of biotechnology (also called genetic engineering, or GE). This experimental technology merges DNA from different species, creating unstable combinations of plant, animal, bacterial and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding.

What foods are GMO?

According to the USDA, in 2009, 93% of soy, 93% of cotton, and 86% of corn grown in the U.S. were GMO. It is estimated that over 90% of canola grown is GMO, and there are also commercially produced GM varieties of sugar beets, squash and Hawaiian Papaya. As a result, it is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. or Canadian grocery store.

Are my children eating GMOs?

The sad truth is many of the foods that are most popular with children contain GMOs. Cereals, snack
bars, snack boxes, cookies, processed lunchmeats, and crackers all contain large amounts of high risk food ingredients. In North America, over 80% of our food contains GMOs. If you are not buying foods that are Non-GMO Project Verified, most likely GMOs are present at breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

Are GMOs safe for my family to eat?

Most developed nations do not consider GMOs to be safe. In nearly 50 countries around the world, including Australia, Japan, and all of the countries in the European Union, there are significant restrictions or outright bans on the production and sale of GMOs. In the U.S., the government has approved GMOs based on studies conducted by the same corporations that created them and profit from their sale.

Beyond Non-GMO: More Tricks for Healthy, Green Treats

Giving away Non-GMO goodies to trick-or-treaters is a great start, but there are other people and planet-friendly choices to consider. When buying Halloween treats and party fare, look for

• Organic
• Locally grown/produced
• No high fructose corn syrup (HFCS)
• Palm-oil free
• No artificial colors, flavors or preservatives

In addition, you may wan to consider giving away goodies or serving foods that are peanut-free, gluten-free, dairy free and/or egg fress. These are some of the the most common food allergens and with 1 in 13 kids suffering from food allergies, limiting highly allergic foods is one way to ensure that Haolloween is safe and fun for everyone.

Does your child want to go door-to-door, but you don't want him/her to consume it all? Consider trading candy fro "pumpkin points" good towards a special gift or activity or invite the Sugar Sprite to come. The Sugar Sprite (or Switch Witch) exchanges candy for a special gift! Dentists across the country also take part in Halloween Candy Buy Back Program in which uneaten candy is collected (usually at $1 a pound) and sent overseas to American Troops. Uneaten candy can also be composted (remove wrapper first).

Would GMO Labeling Jack Up Food Prices?

The push to require labels for genetically modified food, which flared up in California before drowning under a flood of industry cash last year, is now underway in Washington state. Predictably, agrichemical and organic interests are pouring money into, respectively, defeating and supporting a ballot initiative called I-522, which would require foods containing GMO ingredients to bear labels. Just as predictably, the agribusiness interests are garnering much more money to kill the effort than their organic peers are in supporting it—outspending them $17.1 million to $4.6 million, the Spokane-Review reported.

Meanwhile, in a development that broke late Wednesday, the Washington state attorney general has filed a complaint alleging that the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a trade group that donated $2 million to the effort to defeat California's labeling initiative, violated state campaign laws and "spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors," according to its press release.

As in California, the effect on food prices is emerging as a point of contention. Opponents of labeling, pointing to a 2012 study prepared during the California fight by Northbridge Environmental Management Consultants, say that the new rules would cost consumers $350 to $400 annually per household. The Northbridge paper, though, was funded by the industry-dominated campaign to stop Prop 37, as the California initiative was known. Campaign records show that Northridge received a total of $97,371 in five payments during 2012.

Supporters of the Washington initiative, in turn, point to a rival 2012 study, this one prepared by Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University School of Law, which found that "food prices [are] likely to remain unchanged for consumers." That study was commissioned by the Alliance for Natural Health, a group that advocates for "the right of natural-health practitioners to practice and the right of consumers to choose the healthcare options they prefer."

So which is right? Over at Grist, Michael Lipsky, a distinguished senior fellow at the progressive think tank Demos, argues that labeling wouldn't likely cost consumers much at all. The cost of changing labels would be trivial, he writes—food manufacturers "do it all the time." Ever seen the words "new and improved" on some boxed delicacy?

The Northbridge study, he shows, is based on the assumption that, in order to avoid having to declare that their products contain GMOs, food manufactures will rapidly switch over to non-GMO ingredients, which would cost more to procure. That's because upwards of 80 percent of US corn, soybeans, and sugar beets are genetically modified—and iterations of these three crops suffuse US processed foods, providing sweeteners (high-fructose corn syrup and beet sugar), fats (corn and soy oil), and a litany of ingredients like various thickeners. For food manufacturers to get non-GMO versions of these substances, they'd have to pay a premium in the marketplace—hence higher ingredient costs that they'd want to pass on to consumers.

But that effect wouldn't last long, Lipsky argues. "If labeling were required, particularly if (and when) the labeling requirement is adopted by other states, demand for non-GMO versions of corn, soybeans, and sugar beets—the basic GMO crops—would increase, production would expand, and prices for non-GMO ingredients would decline," he writes. That makes good sense: basic supply and demand.

And here's something Lipsky didn't get to: Even in the short term, the effect on retail prices would likely be small. That's because ingredients make up a tiny portion of the expenses incurred by manufactures to process food and move it to grocery store shelves. Transportation, marketing, processing—all of these things cost more than the actual food in the box of cereal or frozen dinner at Walmart.

How tiny are the costs of ingredients? Consider a box of corn flakes—which are presumably made largely of GMO corn (it's impossible to know for sure, because no US state requires labeling). In this 2008 report (currently available online because it has been republished on a non-government server) on the effect of ethanol on food prices, a US Department of Agriculture researcher crunched the numbers (pun fully intended) on the how much money companies spend on corn to make your cereal:

[A]n 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains about 12.9 ounces of milled field corn. When field corn is priced at $2.28 per bushel (the 20-year average), the actual value of corn represented in the box of corn flakes is about 3.3 cents.

And what happened after the corn ethanol program pushed corn prices up to $3.49 per bushel—a 49 percent jump? The total cost of corn in the cereal box rose to 4.9 cents. In other words, paying a 49 percent premium pushed up the corn cost in a box of corn flakes a grand total of 1.6 cents. An 18-ounce box of corn flakes contains 18 servings—meaning that much-pricier corn translated to an increase of less than 0.1 cents per bowl. For a family of four that consumes four bowls of flakes every day, that's about $1.46 extra for the year.

So even if manufacturers had to pay a hefty premium for non-GMO corn, the retail price of food would barely budge. Whatever you think about GMO labeling, the concern that it would significantly jack up food prices is probably specious.

[via Mother Jones]

8 Foods Even The Experts Won’t Eat

Food scientists are shedding light on items loaded with toxins and chemicals–and simple swaps for a cleaner diet and supersized health. Experts from different areas of specialty explain why they won’t eat these eight foods.

Clean eating means choosing fruits, vegetables, and meats that are raised, grown, and sold with minimal processing. Often they’re organic, and rarely (if ever) should they contain additives. But in some cases, the methods of today’s food producers are neither clean nor sustainable. The result is damage to our health, the environment, or both. So we decided to take a fresh look at food through the eyes of the people who spend their lives uncovering what’s safe–or not–to eat. ” Their answers don’t necessarily make up a “banned foods” list. But reaching for the suggested alternatives might bring you better health–and peace of mind.

1. The Endocrinologist Won’t Eat: Canned Tomatoes

Fredrick Vom Saal, is an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A.

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people’s body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. “You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that’s a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young,” says vom Saal. “I won’t go near canned tomatoes.”

The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe’s and Pomi. Exposure to BPA Causes Permanent Damage In OffSpring

2. The Farmer Won’t Eat: Corn-Fed Beef

Joel Salatin is co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming.

The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. “We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure,” says Salatin.

The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It’s usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don’t see it, ask your butcher.

3. The Toxicologist Won’t Eat: Microwave Popcorn

Olga Naidenko, is a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group.

The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize–and migrate into your popcorn. “They stay in your body for years and accumulate there,” says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.

The solution: Pop organic kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix. Make it organic and use coconut oil. If You’re Still Eating Microwave Popcorn, You’re Not Fully Grasping The Health Consequences

4. The Farm Director Won’t Eat: Non-Organic Potatoes

Jeffrey Moyer is the chair of the National Organic Standards Board.

The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes–the nation’s most popular vegetable–they’re treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they’re dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. “Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won’t,” says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). “I’ve talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals.”

The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn’t good enough if you’re trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.  Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.

5. The Fisheries Expert Won’t Eat: Farmed Salmon

Dr. David Carpenter, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany, published a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish.

The problem: Nature didn’t intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. “You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer,” says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. “It’s that bad.” Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.

The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it’s farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

6. The Cancer Researcher Won’t Drink: Milk Produced With Artificial Hormones

Rick North is project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society.

The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. “When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract,” says North. “There’s not 100 percent proof that this is increasing cancer in humans,” admits North. “However, it’s banned in most industrialized countries.”

The solution: Buy raw milk or check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products. The Sour Facts About Milk.

7. The Biotech Specialist Who Won’t Eat Conventional Soy: GMO Unfermented Soy

Michael Harris is biotech specialist who has directed several projects within the biotech sector including those for genetically engineered food. He has been a consultant, manager and director for companies such as Xenon Pharmaceuticals and Genon Corporation.

The problem: Genetically engineered food is a cause of great concern due to the manipulation of DNA and genetic code including transfers from one species to another. Fermented soy is the only soy food fit for human consumption and since almost 90% of soy in the world is genetically modified, if you are not ensuring sources are organic, long-term health problems are inevitable, especially since soy has been found to affect hormonal balance and even cause cancer.

The solution: Check labels to ensure soy is Non-GMO or organic and never consume unfermented sources. If possible contact the company to find out exactly where the Non-GMO soy was obtained.

8. The Organic-Foods Expert Won’t Eat: Conventional Apples

Mark Kastel, a former executive for agribusiness, is co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods.

The problem: If fall fruits held a “most doused in pesticides contest,” apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don’t develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it’s just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. “Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers,” he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson’s disease.

The solution: Buy organic apples or apples from a farmer that you trust!

[via Eat Local Grown]