Friday, June 7, 2013

Connecticut First State to Approve Labeling Genetically Modified Foods



Connecticut on Monday became the first state to pass a bill that would require food manufacturers to label products that contain genetically modified ingredients — but only after other conditions are met.

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has said he would sign the bill into law, after reaching an agreement with the legislature to include a provision that the law would not take effect unless four other states, at least one of which shares a border with Connecticut, passed similar regulations.

The Connecticut bill also hinges on those states including Northeastern states with a total population of at least 20 million.

“This bill strikes an important balance by ensuring the consumers’ right to know what is in their food while shielding our small businesses from liability that could leave them at a competitive disadvantage,” Mr. Malloy said in a statement issued over the weekend after negotiations on the necessary provisions.

The legislature passed the bill on Monday, 134 to 3.

More than 20 other states are considering labeling laws, including New York, Maine and Vermont. Early polling suggests widespread support for a ballot initiative that would require labeling in Washington, as concern spread about the impact of genetically engineered salmon and apples on two of the state’s marquee businesses.

In 2005, Alaska passed a law requiring the labeling of all genetically engineered fish and shellfish, but Connecticut would become the first state to adopt labeling broadly.

Cathleen Enright, executive vice president for food and agriculture at the Biotechnology Industry Organization, said the industry supported voluntary labeling for genetically engineered ingredients. Dr. Enright noted that the Food and Drug Administration typically required labeling of foods only when issues like food safety, consumer health or nutrition were at stake.

She also said labeling by an individual state might put that state’s industry and businesses at a disadvantage compared with other states.

Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, called Connecticut’s move an “important first step,” and “a reminder of where the tide is going on this issue.”

Mark Kastel, co-director of the Cornucopia Institute, a liberal farm policy research group, said that while the triggers were unusual, they could work to the labeling movement’s advantage. “The hurdles in the Connecticut bill, if surmounted, would mean a critical mass in the marketplace that would emulate the impacts that would have materialized if California had passed its ballot initiative,” Mr. Kastel said.

Big food and seed companies like Monsanto and Dow spent tens of millions of dollars last fall to help defeat a ballot measure in California that would have required labeling.

But whether other states will go as far as Connecticut is unclear. In New Mexico, the state Senate voted not to adopt the report of its committee recommending labeling, effectively killing the labeling effort there. Efforts in Vermont, Hawaii and Maine have stalled.

And on Monday, the New York labeling bill was defeated in committee after members, including several who were co-sponsors of the legislation, were lobbied intensely by a representative from the Council for Biotechnology Information, a trade group whose members are BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow AgroScience, DuPont Monsanto and Syngenta — all major makers of genetically modified seeds and pesticides that work with them.

Assemblywoman Linda B. Rosenthal, Democrat of Manhattan, said there were more than 40 co-sponsors when it went into the committee. “We had the votes lined up to pass this, and then the lobbyist for Monsanto and the other big seed companies showed up and was speaking to members and calling them and visiting their offices,” she said.

Ms. Rosenthal said she intended to continue to press for a labeling bill in New York. 


[via NY Times]

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

A Tale of Two Labels: Organic and Non-GMO


The Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied seal is appear­ing on a grow­ing num­ber of food prod­ucts. Sales of Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied prod­ucts increased 66% in 2012, top­ping $2.4 bil­lion in sales—and that doesn’t even include sales of Whole Foods Market’s branded prod­ucts that are non-GMO verified.


“Threatens the organic label”

As the Non-GMO Project logo appears on more and more gro­cery shelves, some mem­bers of the organic food com­mu­nity expressed con­cerns that non-GMO will hurt sales of organic foods.

“The non-GMO label threat­ens the USDA Organic label,” says Greg Lickteig, direc­tor, The Scoular Company, which sells organic and non-GMO grains. “Given two prod­ucts on the gro­cery store shelf, one being non-GMO and the other organic, the non-GMO prod­uct will most cer­tainly be less expensive.”

Rakesh Raniga, pres­i­dent, Indianlife Foods, which sells both organic and Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied prod­ucts, agrees. “Non-GMO ver­i­fied prod­ucts will be less costly, there­fore some con­sumers may choose them over organic.”

Lynn Clarkson, pres­i­dent of Clarkson Grain, a sup­plier of organic and non-GMO grains, also sees non-GMO com­pet­ing with organic. “Yes, I think that a non-GMO label will com­pete with the USDA organic label for buy­ers’ food dol­lars,” he says. “I do not have a sense of how much dam­age it will do. The best way to avoid GMOs is to buy foods graced with the USDA organic label.”

However, he also says that a non-GMO label could be a step­ping stone to more organic demand. “If inter­est in a non-GMO label sen­si­tizes buy­ers to the con­se­quences of farm­ers widely using pes­ti­cides and syn­thetic fer­til­iz­ers, such devel­op­ment might actu­ally increase demand for cer­ti­fied organic foods.”

The Organic Trade Association hasn’t looked at any pos­si­ble impact of the Non-GMO Project on organic, says Laura Batcha, exec­u­tive vice pres­i­dent of the Organic Trade Association. However, she says OTA sur­veys show increas­ing aware­ness and con­cern about GMOs among organic con­sumers. “The num­ber of par­ents that cite avoid­ing GMOs as a rea­son to eat organ­ics rose to 22%, up from 17% in 2011,” Batcha says. “We take that as a pos­i­tive indi­ca­tion that con­sumers see GMOs as a core rea­son to pur­chase organic.”

Compatible with organics

Jim Riddle, coor­di­na­tor, grad­u­ate stu­dent organic research grant pro­gram at the Ceres Trust and for­mer chair of the National Organic Standards Board, doesn’t see a con­flict between non-GMO ver­i­fied and organic. “Many of those (non-GMO) claims appear on organic prod­ucts, and they are com­pat­i­ble with organic prod­ucts and mes­sag­ing,” he says.

Furthermore Riddle says “Both manda­tory GMO labels and vol­un­tary non-GMO labels will force organic pro­duc­ers and mar­keters to up their game and describe how their pro­duc­tion sys­tems have been shown to pro­tect soil health and water qual­ity; pre­vent pes­ti­cide con­t­a­m­i­na­tion; and build bio­di­ver­sity bet­ter than non-organic systems.”

As Riddle points out, many organic prod­ucts also fea­ture the Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied seal. According to Megan Westgate, Non-GMO Project exec­u­tive direc­tor, more than half of the Project’s 9,000 ver­i­fied prod­ucts are organic.

Also, lead­ing organic food com­pa­nies such as Eden Foods, Nature’s Path, and Lundberg Family Farms have been strong sup­port­ers of the Non-GMO Project since its founding.

Westgate says both labels are needed to help con­sumers avoid GMOs. “We are com­mit­ted to help­ing peo­ple under­stand the respec­tive val­ues of cer­ti­fied organic and Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied, and we reg­u­larly encour­age peo­ple to seek out both labels as the gold stan­dard,” she says.

Ken Whitman, pres­i­dent of Natural Vitality [and pub­lisher of Organic Connections], which sells organic sup­ple­ments that are also Non-GMO Project ver­i­fied, says the non-GMO label is needed. “All food isn’t organic and in the absence of GMO label­ing there needs to be a way shop­pers can be assured that the prod­ucts they are buy­ing are not genet­i­cally mod­i­fied. The Non-GMO Project has filled that need,” he says.

Room for both labels

Several organic indus­try experts say that edu­cated organic con­sumers would already know that organic is one of their best options to avoid GMOs since the National Organic Program rules con­sider genetic engi­neer­ing an “excluded method.”

“The true organic dis­ci­ple will under­stand that ‘organic’ has to be non-GMO,” says Steve Ford, pres­i­dent of Stonebridge, Ltd., a sup­plier of non-GMO and organic soybeans. 

“When it comes to label­ing non-GMO prod­ucts it must be under­stood that if you’re cer­ti­fied organic then you’re non-GMO,” says Randal Buresh, pres­i­dent of Oregon’s Wild Harvest. “The Non-GMO Project may help spread the word about organic farm­ing, help­ing to clar­ify what being organic is all about.”

Brendan McEntee, pres­i­dent of Cook Natural Products (also not a Non-GMO Project com­pany), agrees. “For the informed organic con­sumer there will not be any con­fu­sion about organic not being non-GMO.”

Though he also says “Certain organic prod­ucts may lose mar­ket share to cer­ti­fied non-GMO.”

Bob Sinner, pres­i­dent, SB&B Foods, a sup­plier of non-GMO and organic grains, sees a place for both non-GMO and organic label­ing. “I under­stand why the organic folks might try to pro­tect their label­ing turf, but as a uni­fied effort to sup­port the con­sumers that reject biotech I would hope they real­ize the ben­e­fits of both non-GMO and organic label­ing,” he says.

Whitman con­curs. “I don’t think we need a turf war between organic and non-GMO. It wouldn’t be pro­duc­tive. GMO is unpop­u­lar with health-conscious shop­pers. Organic is pop­u­lar. Can’t we just get along?” he says.

Tuesday, June 4, 2013

Why were GMOs created, anyway?

Video offers GMO backstory
via Shara Rutberg | New Hope 360




Why were GMOs created in the first place?

Hint: It has something to do with the world's most popular herbicide.

This quick video presented by ihealthtube.com asks GMO expert Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology, and offers a brief overview of the GMO creation story along with alarming thoughts about the future, including the possibility of “new allergens, toxins and anti-nutrients we don't even know about yet.”


Make it a double feature and check out a trailer for Smith's flick, “Genetic Roulette: The Gamble of Our Lives.” Find scary movies (and their trailers) addictive? Here's a (somewhat) related promo for this summer's horror flick, "Aftershock." Nothing to do with GMOs but looks equally creepy.

On another related note, the new app Buycott allows you to scan the barcode of a product and view a corporate family tree on your phone screen, reports Forbes.com. “I don’t want to push any single point of view with the app,” Ivan Pardo, the 26-year-old freelance programmer behind the app told Forbes. “For me, it was critical to allow users to create campaigns because I don’t think it’s Buycott’s role to tell people what to buy. We simply want to provide a platform that empowers consumers to make well-informed purchasing decisions.”

Monday, June 3, 2013

Breeding the Nutrition Out of Our Food


The present-day sweet corn we serve in summer bears little resemblance to its wild ancestor - a grassy plant called teosinte. A bushy plant with short spikes of grain instead of ears, teosinte has only 5 to 12 kernels in each spike and the kernels are encased in shells so hard you'd need a hammer to crack open. High in starch, low in sugar, teosinte has 10 times more protein than the corn we eat today.

The case of corn illustrates a much broader trend of nutrient loss in our current selections of fruits and vegetables. Thanks to selective breeding practices and spontaneous mutation events, the food we grow contains far fewer nutrients than the wild plantlife from which it derives. That's the central tenet of an eye-opening recent New York Times op-ed by Jo Robinson, author of "Eating on the Wild Side: The Missing Link to Optimum Health" (available June 4). Robinson explains:
Each fruit and vegetable in our stores has a unique history of nutrient loss, I’ve discovered, but there are two common themes. Throughout the ages, our farming ancestors have chosen the least bitter plants to grow in their gardens. It is now known that many of the most beneficial phytonutrients have a bitter, sour or astringent taste. Second, early farmers favored plants that were relatively low in fiber and high in sugar, starch and oil. These energy-dense plants were pleasurable to eat and provided the calories needed to fuel a strenuous lifestyle. The more palatable our fruits and vegetables became, however, the less advantageous they were for our health.
So, as consumers, how do we address the issue? Robinson presents some helpful hints. As for corn, she says, select the type with deep yellow kernels, and if you're cooking with cornmeal, use blue, red, or purple. When it comes to lettuce, look for high-antioxidant arugula, which is very similar to its wild ancestor. Scallions, or green onions, have more than five times more phytonutrients than many common onions do. And use lots of herbs:
Herbs are wild plants incognito. We’ve long valued them for their intense flavors and aroma, which is why they’ve not been given a flavor makeover. Because we’ve left them well enough alone, their phytonutrient content has remained intact.
Read the article here.
[via NYT, SHFT]

Friday, May 31, 2013

The Incredible Health Benefits of Ginger Root


Ginger root was first cultivated in South Asia, eventually spreading to East Africa and the Caribbean. Today, you can find it everywhere.


The root may look measly and weak, but just like its taste, ginger bears some robust health kicks. Filled with cancer-fighting antioxidants and mighty anti-inflammatory benefits, ginger is your key to vibrant health and a slim figure. The incredible healing power of the herbal root is in your reach, and there are many ways to enjoy the health benefits of ginger in your day-to-day life.

Ginger root has only 80 calories per 100 grams and contains essential nutrients and vitamins, such as vitamins B6 and B5, potassium, manganese, copper, and magnesium. Individual vitamin and mineral appreciation aside, the health benefits of ginger root are extensive and benefit the body on a holistic level, in ways that can’t be adequately numbered and listed. However, a few of ginger’s most salient health features are enough to convince you to incorporate it in your daily diet:

Ginger root contains essential oils such as gingerol, zingerone, shogaol, and farnesene. Gingerol and shagol have potent antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. Zingerone gives ginger its pungent flavor and is effective in treating diarrhea. Because ginger packs such significant anti-inflammatory benefits, it has been known to be particularly beneficial in reducing joint pain. It packs antibiotic and anti-fungal properties and prevents diabetes. Ginger has also been shown to overcome several types of cancer cells, such as lung, ovarian, colon, breast, skin, carcinoma, prostate, and pancreatic.
Ginger can also help you to lose weight. According to a study conducted by the Institute of Human Nutrition at Columbia University, ginger consumption led to an increase of the thermal affect of food, triggering reduced feelings of hunger. Don’t only look better in bed with ginger, but also experience an increased sex drive with it too!

Add a thin slice of fresh ginger root to hot tea or use it in a summer-apropos lemonade. Get creative with recipes involving ginger, from biscotti and ice cream, to fish cakes and clay pot chicken.

[via ecosalon]

Thursday, May 30, 2013

25 Unhealthiest Conventional Foods [Infographic]

If the danger of toxic chemicals in your food isn't enough, take some of these stats into consideration when expounding the virtues of organic, especially in the case of the 25 unhealthiest conventional foods, listed below.


[via New Hope 360]

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Health Powers of Asparagus


Asparagus found to have anti-cancer properties.

A new study published in the Indian Journal of Pharmacology found asparagus contains certain compounds that have substantial anticancer properties. Researchers tested the compounds, known as shatavarins, on test tubes of human breast, colon and kidney cancer, as well as on mice with breast cancer.
All the results showed that shatavarins had potent toxicity against cancer cells. Extract of asparagus administered orally in doses of 250 and 500 mg/kg body weight for 10 days caused a significant reduction in tumor volume and tumor cell count.

Asparagus may help prevent diabetes.

In addition to the anticancer properties of asparagus, it may have some anti-diabetic properties as well. Researchers at the University of Karachi in Pakistan found that high doses of asparagus extract had a positive effect on insulin output by the pancreas. The findings add to a 2006 study by the British Medical Journal that found the vegetable triggered an 81 percent increase in glucose uptake by body tissues. Therefore, asparagus can help diabetes by stimulating an increased production of insulin, in addition to enabling the body to absorb more glucose.

Asparagus may prevent a hangover.

Those who celebrate the New Year by drinking too much alcohol may prevent a hangover by taking asparagus extract. Chronic drinking can cause detrimental changes in the liver, as well as the unpleasant symptoms of a hangover. Scientists at the Institute of Medical Science and Jeju National University in Korea found the asparagus extracts “significantly alleviated” the cellular toxicity of alcohol, a benefit that translates to lessening of a hangover and protection of liver cells.

Asparagus offers up tremendous cardiovascular benefits.

This vegetable contains a compound called rutin that can help prevent deadly blood clots, which can lead to heart attacks and strokes. Moreover, asparagus is a good food source of folic acid, a nutrient that helps counter the bad effects of homocysteine, an amino acid in the blood linked to increased cardiovascular risk.

Asparagus can help balance out your electrolytes

Adding to the list of impressive health properties are three more benefits. Asparagus is a rich source of potassium, a mineral that regulates fluid balance; so the diuretic effects of asparagus can reduce bloating in the tummy area that sometimes occurs after eating a big meal. The vegetable also has anti-inflammatory and antifungal properties.