Our food supply issues grow

I hadn't blogged about our food supply here in a long time, but then I came across two articles in one day that gently reminded me that I was overdue for an update. I've previously blogged here (and here) about the dangerous (and creepy) nature of genetically modified (GMO) foods, and the evidence continues to pile up in favor of my argument.

From Yves Smith of the Naked Capitalism blog, citing a study from the Committee for Research & Independent Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN):

For the first time, the health impact of a GMO and a widely used pesticide have been comprehensively assessed in a long term animal feeding trial of greater duration and with more detailed analyses than any previous studies, by environmental and food agencies, governments, industries or researchers institutes. 

The two tested products are in very common use : (i) a transgenic maize made tolerant to Roundup, the characteristic shared by over 80% of food and animal feed GMOs, and (ii) Roundup itself, the most widely used herbicide on the planet. The regulatory approval process requires these products to be tested on rats as a surrogate for humans. 

The new research took the form of a two year feeding trial on 200 rats, monitored for outcomes against more than 100 parameters. The doses were consistent with typical dietary/ environmental exposure... 

The results... included increased and more rapid mortality, coupled with hormonal non linear and sex related effects. Females developed significant and numerous mammary tumours, pituitary and kidney problems. Males died mostly from severe hepatorenal chronic deficiencies...

The implications are extremely serious. They demonstrate the toxicity, both of a GMO with the most widely spread transgenic character and of the most widely used herbicide, even when ingested at extremely low levels, (corresponding to those found in surface or tap water). In addition, these results call into question the adequacy of the current regulatory process, used throughout the world by agencies involved in the assessment of health, food and chemicals, and industries seeking commercialisation of products.

As Yves and the study's authors point out, what sets this research apart from previous studies is the duration of the testing. While regulatory analyses of these products last only 3 months, this particular study lasted two years, a significant portion of the rats' lives. This study therefore sheds more light on the long-term effects of these products, which is frankly significantly more relevant from a public health standpoint.

At issue here is Monsanto's GMO corn, an herbicide-resistant product (Monsanto also sells the herbicide in question, Roundup) that is in a distressing number of the products that we buy regularly—one estimate pegs the percentage at 70%, largely because GMO corn is the primary ingredient in high-fructose corn syrup, which is in basically everything in the supermarket these days. Think you're doing your best to avoid GMO corn in the supermarket? So did I, until I read this blog post, which scared the crap out of me.

Finally, since I promised that I'd read two articles that made me want to revisit this topic, here's the second.

If it were a novel, people would criticize the plot for being too far-fetched – thriving colonies disappear overnight without leaving a trace, the bodies of the victims are never found. Only in this case, it’s not fiction: It’s what’s happening to fully a third of commercial beehives, over a million colonies every year. Seemingly healthy communities fly off never to return. The queen bee and mother of the hive is abandoned to starve and die. 

Thousands of scientific sleuths have been on this case for the last 15 years trying to determine why our honey bees are disappearing in such alarming numbers. “This is the biggest general threat to our food supply,” according to Kevin Hackett, the national program leader for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s bee and pollination program. 

Until recently, the evidence was inconclusive on the cause of the mysterious “colony collapse disorder” (CCD) that threatens the future of beekeeping worldwide. But three new studies point an accusing finger at a culprit that many have suspected all along, a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids. 

In the U.S. alone, these pesticides, produced primarily by the German chemical giant Bayer and known as “neonics” for short, coat a massive 142 million acres of corn, wheat, soy and cotton seeds. They are also a common ingredient in home gardening products. 

Research published last month in the prestigious journal Science shows that neonics are absorbed by the plants’ vascular system and contaminate the pollen and nectar that bees encounter on their rounds. They are a nerve poison that disorient their insect victims and appear to damage the homing ability of bees, which may help to account for their mysterious failure to make it back to the hive.

Perfect. Am I the only one creeped out by the fact that we regularly eat chemicals that disorient and kill bees? If it's toxic to bees, then it's toxic to us as well, even if it doesn't immediately kill us or send us wandering aimlessly off the grid in search of our homes. No, we just die decades later from mysterious cancers that we can't seem to cure, never knowing what the hell happened to us or why.

Just because there isn't a short-term problem doesn't mean there it isn't a long-term problem (hey, sounds a lot like our debt situation, doesn't it?), and I'm increasingly convinced that's what's going on with our nation's food supply.

Yes, in the short term it seems like these foods are just the same as the foods that we grew 20 years ago—they look the same, nobody's dropping dead from them, we don't show any visible ill effects in the first few years, so we all assume that everything is hunky-dory. But is that really the case? Increasingly, science is answering "no" to that question, and I think we all need to stand up and take notice. Our food supply is inexorably deteriorating in quality, and it may already be too late to reverse the damage.

[Naked Capitalism]
[Reuters]

Creepy

I've written here before a couple of times about genetically modified foods, and how they frankly terrify me. Without going too deep into my reasons or the details, suffice it to say we have a new winner in the Creepy Food Olympics.

Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk, and hope to be selling it in supermarkets within three years. 

The milk produced by the transgenic cows is identical to the human variety and has the same immune-boosting and antibacterial qualities as breast milk, scientists at China's Agricultural University in Beijing say. 

The transgenic herd of 300 was bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows. 

The technology was similar to that used to produce Dolly the sheep. 

The milk is still undergoing safety tests but with government permission it will be sold to consumers as a more nutritious dairy drink than cow's milk.

And why wouldn't the government give their permission? Governments are experts on unintended consequences, right? If they don't see anything wrong with this, then what could possibly go wrong?

[Sky News]

Jesus...

Look, I'll be completely upfront here and say that I've got no love for (or trust of) the Food & Drug Administration (oh, or the USDA...but that's a topic for a different blog post). But the latest initiative to come out of the FDA, as described in this New York Times article, is just a wee bit unbecoming.

Federal drug regulators unveiled 36 proposed warning labels for cigarette packages on Wednesday, including some that are striking pictures of smoking’s effects.

Designed to cover half of a pack’s surface area, the new labels are intended to spur smokers to quit by providing graphic reminders of tobacco’s dangers. The labels are required under a law passed last year that gave the Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate tobacco products for the first time.

The proposed labels include pictures of a man smoking from a tracheostomy tube inserted into his throat; a diseased lung; and a woman holding a baby in a smoke-filled room. The proposals stayed away from some of the more gruesome labels used in other countries, where pictures of blackened teeth and diseased mouths are common.

Look, I understand the health risks of tobacco, and the public hazard of secondhand smoke. I agree with educating the public about these risks, and I'm a big proponent of smoking bans in restaurants and bars. But this is going a little too far...

At the very least, the graphics proposed by the FDA are distasteful. But worse, I think these warnings speak to a larger contradiction within our federal watchdog agencies.

Remember, this is the same FDA that steadfastly refuses to place any sort of labeling on foods with genetically modified content (or to allow non-GMO foods to advertise themselves as such), despite scientific evidence that shows health risks from GMO foods. This inconsistency is incredibly troubling, and leads to significant questions regarding whose interests the FDA is truly serving.

We should not allow federal agencies to declare outright war on one industry (which is exactly what they are doing by devoting a full HALF of the surface area of cigarette packaging to these graphic warnings), while they simultaneously allow and encourage potentially risky behavior in others (genetically modified salmon being just one example). Too many government agencies are being allowed to pick winners and losers in our economy, and we simply can't allow this type of mission creep.

The USDA contradiction that I linked to in my introductory paragraph above is another massive failure of government, and shows how conflicting interests can pull and tug our watchdog agencies in very strange and inefficient ways.

Personally, I'm not looking forward to seeing these warnings on cigarette packaging any more so than I'd welcome a picture of an obese man undergoing gastric bypass surgery on a bag of Cheetos. Educating the public is one thing; using scare tactics to undermine a specific product is another thing entirely.


[New York Times]

GMO and the FDA

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been in the headlines a lot lately, as it has considered whether or not to approve genetically modified salmon. At the heart of the debate is the FDA's policies on food labeling--its policies dictate that once a food has been approved for sale, it cannot and will not require the manufacturer to label it as "genetically modified".

The Washington Post has reported that, in addition to approving genetically modified "Frankenfish" salmon without requiring a GMO [genetically modified organism] label, the FDA will also be banning the inclusion of any references to not containing genetically modified content on food items which are GMO free.

The FDA, which has been under intense pressure from GM interests to approve the modified salmon without requiring any labeling, stated that it could not require a label on the salmon because the agency determined that the altered fish are not "materially different" from other salmon. Apparently, the agency is using even the same, and even flimsier, justifications to force food companies to hide the truth if their products are GM/GMO free - much to the delight of the multi-billion dollar GM industries. (Emphasis mine)

This has to make you uncomfortable. I don't honestly know for sure whether there's a "material difference" between genetically modified and conventional food, despite anecdotal evidence indicating that farm animals refuse to eat GMO corn and soy, and drawing potential links between GMO food and allergies. But I think that the FDA's arguments here are paper thin. According to the Post article,

"Extra labeling only confuses the consumer," said David Edwards, director of animal biotechnology at the Biotechnology Industry Organization. "It differentiates products that are not different. As we stick more labels on products that don't really tell us anything more, it makes it harder for consumers to make their choices."

The FDA defends its approach, saying it is simply following the law, which prohibits misleading labels on food. And the fact that a food, in this case salmon, is produced through a different process, is not sufficient to require a label.

This kind of idiocy (and hiding behind "policies") represents the height of hypocrisy. Deliberately hiding information from the consumer--and then pretending that it is to the consumer's benefit--is the work of a con artist. The FDA has gone out of its way to inform the consumer in other arenas, requiring incredibly detailed nutritional information on product labels and forcing chain restaurants to provide calorie counts on their menus. Their approach in those cases seems to be that the more informed the consumer becomes, the better food choices he will make. That their approach here seems so different--hiding information instead of providing more--indicates that the GMO food manufacturers have more political clout than anyone should allow.

Memo to the FDA: don't decide what will and won't confuse me, and pretend to be looking out for my best interests. That's not your job (and remember, you work for me). Provide me with all relevant information, and let me make my own decisions. This kind of ill-advised governmental paternalism is not in anyone's best interests--except maybe Monsanto.

[Washington Post]
[Natural News]