Don't Be Afraid of the DARK

Almost exactly one year ago, we posted this article about the so-called DARK Act—legislation that would overturn existing laws, and ban any new ones—that would mandate labeling of GMO foods in the US.

Those who are anti-GMO foods and pesticides are often accused of being just a bunch of hippie freaks, luddites who cannot accept that we've embarked upon a new and beautiful age of scientific dominance over Nature, the benefits of which far exceed the negatives. If that is so, then the vast majority of Americans are, in fact, hippie freaks (click on the image to enlarge, and you'll see what I mean):

http://www.justlabelit.org/

Our post was a call to action—literally, contact info was provided for your Representative’s office in Washington. And while that bill passed the Congress, we are pleased to report that last week it was defeated in the Senate. Good on you, US Senate, for standing up for the will of the people.

Regrettably, no major news outlet (that I could find) has reported on this very important story. Here's a link to the best source I've found:

From The Environmental Working Group:

"In a major win for consumers, [Senators who sponsored the pro-GMO legislation] yesterday [March 16, 2016] failed to attract the votes ... needed to end debate on a bill known to opponents as the Deny Americans the Right to Know Act. It fell far short of the 60-vote threshold required to advance the bill."

" ... The defeat of the DARK Act gives Congress the opportunity to craft a national mandatory GMO-labeling compromise that works for consumers and the food industry."

So it seems that the DARK Act, with your help, is done for now. 

Would you like to know how your representative voted? Follow this link to find out!

In the meantime, if you did contact your lawmaker over this, give yourself a pat on the back!

FrankenFish and Cultured Chicken

Last week, the FDA stunned the anti-GMO movement by approving a genetically modified Atlantic salmon to be farmed for human consumption--the first such approval for an animal whose DNA has been scientifically modified. The new fish will have its genes altered to enable it to grow faster than un-altered salmon, thus increasing its profitability without, its makers say, making it unsafe for the public. The new salmon will not have to be labeled as a GMO product, either, according to the FDA. Activist groups have vowed to oppose the sale of these new fish, and some retailers, such as Kroger's, have said they will not carry it on their shelves.

Science is here to stay, it seems, in all aspects of our lives, to be sure--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. We accept CAT scans and airplanes and microwave ovens, cellphones and hairdryers--all products of Science, which we use with varying levels of unease throughout our daily lives. That Science rears its head in the production of our food? This, I think, trips our inner alarm bells in an even more visceral way, especially when choice--not labeling a GMO product as such, for instance--is taken away from us. It conflates into the ugliest notions about Science and scientists: that it is somehow a conspiracy of eggheads who, at best, are the helpless pawns of conciousless corporate overlords, or, at worst, a group of PhDed psychopaths determined to destroy all mankind for their own sick pleasure.

Stereotypes aside, what is Science up to with our food, and why? That things must be made cheaper, faster, last longer on the shelves, and cause no immediate, easily verifiable damage to our bodies seems to be the goal of modern food production in America. Whatever negative impacts are made on the environment in this quest seems to never be part of the equation, and, somewhere below that never, the well-being of the animals on whose flesh we feed.

But what if that were not the case? What if Science was as concerned with the environment and the animals we consume, while also trying to provide us with animal products? Enter "Cultured Chicken," the result of The Modern Agriculture Foundation (MAF) in Ramat Gan, Israel. This all volunteer, nonprofit organization was founded in March last year, and by January launched the world’s first feasibility study to determine the cost, timetable and resources to create commercial cultured chicken breast.

What is the world is a "cultured chicken breast"? Does it enjoy Proust, ponder Hegel, weep at the climax of La Traviata? Sadly, no. Let's let MFA explain in their handy infographic, below:

Says MAF cofounder Shir Friedman:

“Today, the meat, dairy and egg industries are among the major contributors to climate change. They consume huge amounts of valuable resources such as energy and fresh water, contribute to the outbreak of pandemics such as swine flu and are the cause of deaths of billions of animals every year."

About half the earth’s land area is taken up by livestock and the crops that feed them. A third of our freshwater is used for livestock and their food, and half the world’s greenhouse gas emissions come from cattle headed to slaughter. Cultured meat production would require between seven and 45 percent less energy, 90% less fresh water and 99% less land, and would result in 80 to 90% less greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere.

One of the MAF’s biggest challenges, says the article, is to convince people that cultured meat is not “Frankenfood” and involves no genetic engineering. It is not a meat substitute, but 100% meat. When produced on a mass scale, cultured meat won’t be made in a lab but in a factory just like any other processed food from ketchup to cornflakes.

Talk about "cruelty-free!"

Now look here, you say. That's all well and good, but darn it, can't I just have a piece of chicken without Science all up in it? The kind of chicken Grandma had--is it really too much to ask?? 

It turns out, it is. Even Grandma stopped having chicken like she grew up with, if Grandma grew up in the pre-World War ll era. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the fact that Science has, for a long time now, been up in your chicken.

Let's go all the way back, about 2,000 years ago, when chickens were first domesticated. From the very start of the human-chicken relationship, we have used what we would call Science to change them for our purposes. Strange as it may seem, chickens weren't initially bred to be meals back then, but for their fighting abilities--that's right, cock fighting. 

a mosaic uncovered in Pompeii, probably from the first century AD.

Over time, however, the primary value in poultry keeping was eggs, and meat was considered a byproduct of egg production. Its supply was less than the demand, and poultry was expensive. Except in hot weather, eggs can be shipped and stored without refrigeration for some time before going bad; this was important in the days before widespread refrigeration. There was a reason Herbert Hoover's Presidential campaign slogan in 1928 was "A Chicken in Every Pot." Chicken was expensive, and a rarity, and being able to have it was indeed a sign of prosperity.

By the late 1950s, poultry production had changed dramatically. Refrigeration, the development of Vitamin D (which made it possible to keep chickens in confinement year-round), new breeding and in-cage- egg-laying techniques all helped to industrialize something that once was a niche product of small family farms. 

All this helped to make chicken the item that we perhaps most take for granted on any given menu. 

But back to your Grandma's chicken.

The other way that chicken has changed, besides becoming cheaper and more easily available to us than previous generations, is the sheer size of the things. Check it out:

Cross breeding chickens in the late '40's created the monsters we find wrapped in cellophane in our markets today: plumper thighs, meatier drumsticks, and breasts that would make Mae West blush. And, though products of breeding rather than genetic manipulation (or growth hormones, still illegal in the U.S.) they share the fast growth rate of their salmon cousins, going from chick to a five-pound bird in just six weeks. 

The downside?

These ideal chickens don’t have ideal health. The bigger, fatter chickens get sicker than the birds of yesterday. Confinement and excess weight lead to stress, reproductive issues, cardiovascular disease, and skeletal problems. Heavy antibiotics use — needed to combat disease — has led to disease-resistant bacteria, which are present in about half of all chicken in US stores.

As if that weren't bad enough, these mutant birds don't taste very good either. In my experience buying the big breasts or thighs, usually because of some irresistible sale, I'm lead to regret my thrift because the meat is tough and tasteless. Something the industry could care less about, having already got my money, I'm sure. 

For all these reasons--environmental, animal welfare, the health of us humans, and the taste of our dinners, I'm fairly interested in this cultured chicken business (and also beef).

Hebrew University Prof. Yuval Noah Harari, author of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, says that if the process becomes economically feasible, “the ecological and ethical considerations would make cultured meat irresistible. Cultured meat is one of the most important revolutions in the history of food and in the history of humankind itself.”

What do you think, Calvin?

Fast Track Detoured

Previously, we talked about the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015) -- the “fast track” legislation to push through the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal.

We talked about how there's little in this sweeping TPP legislation for regular people to benefit from, and actually a lot for them to be worried about, if it were to pass. We even gave out ways to contact our representatives in Congress and urge them to vote against the fast track authority.

The good news is, it seems to have worked! 

Today, the deal's advocates were not able to pull in enough votes to make the thing happen, and for that, you can give yourselves a pat on the back, if you are one of the many people who did contact their congressperson. As CNN puts it:

(The defeat) showcased the strength of populist elements of both parties, who beat back an intense lobbying push from traditional Washington forces like the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers.

However, no one should expect that this will now go away. We, the people, have shown that we can do it, and we need to keep showing it. Click here to contact your congressperson today, letting them know you are still very much a part of this fight! 

Just Say No

Previously on this blog, we talked about the so-called DARK Act, a bill before Congress that would make it illegal to label products that contain GMOs. Just in case it fails, there's another plan in place, one even weirder than DARK.

To ensure that the public will never know what's really in their food, there's the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. The TPP is a sweeping international trade deal, negotiated largely in secret, designed almost exclusively by the corporations it would most benefit. It would affect everything from banking to farming to intellectual property rights, so there's lots of reasons to be alarmed. 

From Vox.com: 

... this system for setting global rules has some serious defects. We expect the laws that govern our economic lives will be made in a transparent, representative, and accountable fashion. The TPP negotiation process is none of these — it's secretive, it's dominated by powerful insiders, and it provides little opportunity for public input.

Supporters of the deal say it will make the US more competitive in the global marketplace. I'm not sure turning the world into a court room where corporations can use legal muscle to trump native laws is what I would call "competition." This article is a great summary of the feeling:

Private corporations should not have the option of suing a nation whenever they feel like a rule or law has effected their profit rate. This is simply a part of doing business; an inherent aspect of capitalism. Investing is never risk-free; there are natural, social, and political changes that could always hurt an investment. More importantly, when a company’s product is hurting people or the environment, government has the right and obligation to stop it.

So what can any of us do to keep such a thing from happening? Well, there actually is something. There's a bill in Washington at the moment called the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015). It is “fast track” legislation to push through the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal. “Fast track” authority would eliminate Congress’s right to make any changes to the President’s trade deals before signing off. The administration needs Congress to pass TPA-2015 to bring the TPP negotiations to fruition.

That's where you come in.

Click here to let your Senators know you oppose the TPP, and urge them to vote "no" on TPA-2015. Corporations that profit from hiding GMOs shouldn’t be the ones writing the rules about GMO labeling – but that’s exactly what TPP and fast track would mean.

To learn more visit exposethetpp.org

Thanks to Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, for giving us the heads up on this important issue.

Got Fairlife?

You've probably heard about Fairlife already--the new milk product out from Coke, lampooned on Stephen Colbert as an over-priced "Frankenstein Food."

Though ripe for comedy, it's worth mentioning that Fairlife is neither owned nor was created by Coca-Cola. Coke is in partnership with its creators to distribute, and, unfortunately, advertise Fairlife for them:

yeesh.

The idea of the beverage is that it's lower in fat and sugar than regular milk, and contains no lactose, but that it's just as safe and nutritious and tasty as real milk--indeed, moreso. But why monkey around with milk in the first place, you may well ask. Isn't altering milk in a lab akin to reinventing the wheel? After all, milk is often called nature's perfect food, isn't it? 

Apparently not perfect enough for today's world, where milk may be a perfect food … but is it a perfect product?

As a product, milk leaves a lot to be desired. First of all, anyone with a cow can make it; that's a  big downside for corporations, where proprietary ownership is key. Another problem is that, more and more, milk comes from a few, centralized mega-farms--not the small, family-owned local dairies of yore. That means logistical headaches. Unlike, say, tennis balls, time is a real factor in shipping and distributing milk--it has only a tiny window of time before it goes bad. 

That's why Fairlife is just what the P.hD in bioengineering ordered. According to Coca-Cola's North American chief Sandy Douglas, (as quoted in this article) when speaking at Morgan Stanley's Global Consumer Conference in November, 2014, Fairlife "has a proprietary milk filtering process" that removes much of the sugar. "It's basically the premiumization of milk," Douglas said.

Proprietary ownership? Check.

And, from near the end of the same article:

The product also has a shelf life of 90 days, compared to regular milk that typically expires within a couple weeks of purchase.

Don't be mislead by that sentence, Consumer. That "improved shelf life"? isn't for you. It's for them. Fairlife can sit in a truck, loiter on a train, linger on a dock, collect dust in a warehouse, for 3 months. Yum.

Ultimately, it seems, the goal of this product, and products like it, is to be something a lot more like tennis balls and a lot less like food.

So, no matter what it tastes like, no matter its price point, the fact is, a more accurate name for this product? 

For more on Fairlife, follow these links:

The Guardian, UK

Primal Pastures

Are You Afraid of the DARK?

GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organisms. The corporations that make them, such as Monsanto, constantly assure us that these scientifically altered foods and pesticides are perfectly safe. That must be why they are supporting a bill that would make it illegal to identify products that contain them.

The Statesman Journal (because CNN doesn't think you're interested) has reported that a bill was introduced in Congress last week that would overturn GMO labeling laws enacted in Vermont, Connecticut and Maine, prohibit other states from enacting food-labeling laws, and make it harder for the FDA to mandate labeling nationwide.

Among its supporters are the Grocery Manufacturers Association, PepsiCo, Monsanto and Koch Industries.

Opponents have dubbed it the Deny Americans the Right-to-Know, or DARK Act.

"The evidence is mounting that Monsanto's glyphosate and other chemicals used on genetically engineered crops may be harming our health," said Lisa Archer, a program director with Friends of the Earth. "Americans have more reason than ever to want to know whether they are eating GMOs."

Okay, Monsanto. If your Frankenfoods are safe, and you legitimately believe that the work you do is not just healthy, but a benefit to all mankind, why hide your light under a bushel? How can you not be excited to have your miraculous inventions labeled, helping the public to more easily find your products? Why not help a government mandate and design a label that shows how awesome you are? 

What are you afraid of?

Let's let Monsanto know that we trust them, and that we want to buy their products, in all their mysterious, probably cancer-causing glory, but that we can't do that unless they are CLEARLY LABELED.

Dial 1-877-796-1949. You’ll hear more information about the DARK Act, and then you’ll be automatically connected to your Representative’s office in Washington. Let him or her know that you OPPOSE the DARK Act (H.R. 1599) and SUPPORT the Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act (H.R. 913).

To learn more, visit this link.

Too late, Monsanto! The Interwebs have it covered.

Thanks to Big Sister Marsha, RN, MSN, for getting us this info .

This Just In...

Earlier in this blog we talked about how American chocolate had won a fight to keep British chocolate, made with more natural ingredients, out of this country. Today, Hershey's has announced its pulling some GMOs out of their most popular products:

from The Daily Mail:

The company is also dropping emulsifier polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR) and artificial vanillin, the Confectionery News reported. PGPR reduces the viscosity of chocolate and is used by companies as a replacement for expensive raw ingredient cocoa butter...The decision comes amid a growing backlash against 'Frankenfoods'. Critics of GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms) foods consider them environmentally suspect and a possible health threat.

This new direction was caused, it turns out, by a vocal backlash against the use of GMOs on Hershey's Facebook page, but also a lean, as the article mentions, of its competitors away from GMOs and other items of offense, such as high fructose corn syrup. Anyway, this is a step in the right direction for Hershey and American foods in general. As the Aussies would say, "Good on ya, Hershey Facebook followers!"

As consumers, and as citizens, we need to keep up the pressure on not just food producers, but legislators, too, for healthy, natural, or at the very least, in my view, clearly labeled products to help us make the best decisions for ourselves and our families. Even on stuff we shouldn't be eating anyway, like candy bars.

A whole new world--now with fewer mystery ingredients!