Top 10 Food Label Tricks to Avoid

When I am surfing the Internet, I get these random links to stories that catch my eye.  I came across an interesting link that I thought I'd like to write a post about.  The title of the story is "Top 10 Food Label Tricks to Avoid in 2012."  After my post yesterday about reading Nutrition Facts Labels, I thought this list was intriguing and something that I could embellish with information of my own...

10. NO TRANS FAT

• As mentioned in my post yesterday, according to the FDA's Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA),  fat content is not required to be listed on the label "if the food contains less than 0.5 grams of total fat per serving and if no claims are made about fat or cholesterol content."
• The bad thing about this is if you eat multiple foods that contain less than 0.5 grams of trans fat, you could be eating a "measurable" amount of trans fat over the course of the day.
• Avoid products that have "partially hydrogenated oils" listed as an ingredient.  This usually indicates that the product has some trans fat.

9. MULTIGRAIN

• Some may mistake this to mean "whole grain" or "whole wheat."  It does not.  This just means that the product is "made from several grains, which may be whole or refined. Labels such as "12 grain" and "made with" whole wheat can be equally deceptive. "
• "To make sure the food is rich in whole grains, check the ingredients. The first one listed should contain the word "whole.""

8. ALL NATURAL

• "The FDA has no strict definition of the term, and many packaged foods claiming to be natural contain added chemicals and other substances."
• "The USDA, which regulates meat and poultry, has a more precise definition (no artificial ingredients and minimally processed), but it still allows for some additives."
• The USDA held came to this conclusion based on public hearings and a petition filed by Hormel Foods.  
• "In addition, it's permissible to slap a "natural" label on meat and poultry from animals raised with antibiotics or hormones."

7. ORGANIC

• "Organic products, which tend to be significantly more expensive than their conventional counterparts, can be just as high in salt, sugar or calories, low in fiber and devoid of nutrients."
• "What's more, they may legally contain non-organic ingredients."
• I only look for products that state it is 100% USDA certified organic.  That way, you know that it does not contain Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).
• Items listed as simply being "organic" may contain up to 30% of GMOs.

6. HIGH IN FIBER

• "To boost their fiber content, many packaged foods contain added fiber with names such as inulin, maltodextrin and polydextrose."
• "While these count toward a food's fiber total, they haven't been proven to offer the same health benefits as the naturally-occurring fiber found in fruits, vegetables and whole grains."
• "Inulin can cause gastrointestinal discomfort."
• According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' "Dietary Guidelines for Americans", "dietary fiber naturally occurs in plants, helps provide a feeling of fullness, and is important in promoting healthy laxation."
• "These foods are consumed below recommended levels in the typical American diet."
• Women should consume 25g daily while men should consume 38g daily.
• "Dietary fiber that occurs naturally in foods may help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes."
• "Children and adults should consume foods naturally high in dietary fiber in order to increase nutrient density, promote healthy lipid profiles and glucose tolerance, and ensure normal gastrointestinal function."
• They also state that "fiber is sometimes added to foods and it is unclear if added fiber provides the same health benefits as naturally occurring sources."

5. NO HIGH-FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP

• "Human studies of the sweetener high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) have generally shown it to be no worse for our waistlines or our health than table sugar. "
• "The two have a similar chemical makeup, and both contain about the same number of calories."
• "Just because a product contains an alternative to HFCS -- whether sugar, fruit juice concentrate, brown rice syrup or agave nectar -- doesn't necessarily make it more healthful. "
• "All caloric sweeteners, if consumed in excess, can contribute to obesity and related health problems."

4. CONTAINS SEA SALT

• " It offers no clear health advantages over table salt."
• "By weight, both contain about the same amount of sodium, which is what poses a health risk."
• According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, "Virtually all Americans consume more sodium than they need."
• "The estimated average intake of sodium for all Americans ages 2 years and older is approximately 3,400 mg per day."
• The recommended daily average intake of sodium for individuals aged 9-50 is 1,500mg per day.
• The "Upper Tolerable Intake Level" is 2,300mg per day for people aged 14 and older.  
• According to the American Heart Association, there is approximately 2,300mg of sodium per teaspoon.
• With this calculation, you should consume only around 1/2 teaspoon of salt per day.
• "Most sodium comes from salt added during food processing."
• This is a good reason why you should cook your own rather than purchasing prepared foods.
• "Some sodium-containing foods are high in sodium, but the problem of excess sodium intake also is due to frequent consumption of foods that contain lower amounts of sodium, such as yeast breads."

3. SUPPORTS A HEALTHY IMMUNE SYSTEM

• "A growing number of products imply that they can boost immunity and ward off illness."
• "There's typically little or no evidence for such claims."
• "This deception is permitted because of a loophole in labeling rules."
• "By saying that a food "maintains" or "supports" normal functioning (such as a healthy immune system, blood pressure or cholesterol levels) instead of explicitly stating that it can treat or prevent a condition, manufacturers don't have to provide any proof."

2. EXCELLENT SOURCE OF OMEGA-3

• "Studies show that fish oil is good for the heart, and many products from mayonnaise to peanut butter have added omega-3 fatty acids, the key ingredient in fish oil."
• "But these foods typically contain a form of omega-3s known as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), which comes from plant sources such as flaxseed and canola oil rather than fish."
• "The health benefits of ALA are not nearly as well documented as those of fish oil."
• "The amount we get from some products may be too low to provide any benefit."
• "You're better off getting your omega-3s from fish such as salmon."

1. SERVING SIZE

• Manufacturers often list servings sizes on their nutrition labels which do not reflect what a consumer will actually eat.  
• Consumers will often eat more than what is listed as a serving size.
• "Especially misleading are snacks and beverages from vending machines or convenience stores that seem to be single servings."
• Even the FDA recognizes this "problem" and warns consumers to pay attention to the nutrition facts label. 
• "The size of the serving on the food package influences the number of calories and all the nutrient amounts listed on the top part of the label."
• "Pay attention to the serving size, especially how many servings there are in the food package. Then ask yourself, "How many servings am I consuming"?"

After reading this article, it has made me think more about reading labels rather than blindly purchasing items.  It is amazing what manufacturers can do to "trick" us into thinking we are eating something that is healthier when in fact we are not.  This is a good example why there is an obesity epidemic and why I need to teach my children from an early age the importance of making healthy food choices.

Monsanto - Friend or Foe?

Who or what is Monsanto?  According to their company website, Monsanto is a Fortune 500 Company headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.  They sell agricultural and vegetable seeds which have traits "developed through biotechnology."  They also manufacture "crop protection chemicals."  On their website, they state, "producing more, conserving more, improving lives that's sustainable agriculture.  And that's what Monsanto is all about."

They plan to "produce more" by "working to double yields in our core crops by 2030.  These yield gains will come from a combination of advanced plant breeding, biotechnology, and improved farm-management practices."  They plan to "conserve more" by strengthening their "goal of doubling crop yields by committing to doing it with one-third fewer resources such as land, water, and energy per unit produced."  They aim to "improve lives" by "working to help farmers achieve big increases in yield and productivity.  And for all of the world's farmers who raise themselves from poverty to prosperity, many more people will also prosper."

At Monsanto, they "are dedicated to providing farmers the broadest choice of products and services that will help them produce more, conserve more and lead improved lives."  They offer:  "high-yielding conventional and biotech seeds,  advanced traits and technologies that enable more nutritious and durable crops, and have safe and effective crop protection solutions."  They state that "product stewardship is something as a company, Monsanto takes very seriously.  Whether it's ensuring environmental standards are not only met, but exceeded or protecting the safety of our people and communities, Monsanto's stewardship commitments are a top priority."

They are the "world's leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands.  They are also the largest producer of genetically engineered seed."

Sounds like a great company, right?  They are innovating agriculture by using technology to improve crop yields.  Unfortunately, despite their marketing efforts, Monsanto has been controversial among the "alter-globalization movement and environmental activists."

Since its inception in 1901, Monsanto has been responsible for the development of the artificial sweetener saccharin, DDT, Agent Orange, Aspartame (NutraSweet), rBST (bovine growth hormone), and PCBs.  They were the first company to genetically modify a plant cell.  All of these products, many of which have been shown to cause cancer, have made them the target of activists.

They further "endeared" themselves to activists when they sued farmers in Canada and the US over "patent infringement" when farmers were selling seeds containing Monsanto's patented genes.  The farmers were actually the "victims" of contamination of their own crops by winds that carried Monsanto's genetically modified seeds into their own fields.  Monsanto failed to secure their fields from contaminating their neighbors fields.

Monsanto has genetically engineered seeds to produce plants that "produce its own insecticide. This it can do in every cell of every leaf, stem, flower, root and spud."  The idea behind this is the plant would be immune to pests without having to be actually sprayed with chemical insecticides.

If you planted in your garden seeds developed at Monsanto, the genes you are using "remain the intellectual property of Monsanto."  Were you to "save even one" of the seeds "to plant next year," you "would be breaking Federal law."  The plants seeds themselves are considered a "pesticide, registered with the Environmental Protection Agency."

The plants were "developed" to produce Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), which is a bacterial toxin produced in the plants to kill insects which are susceptible to this toxin when ingested.  Organic farmers have been using this toxin in their farming practices.  However, "the widespread use of Bt in biotech crops is likely to lead to insect resistance, thus robbing organic growers of one of their most critical tools; that is, Monsanto's version of sustainable agriculture may threaten precisely those farmers who pioneered sustainable farming."

"Uncertainty is the theme that unifies much of the criticism leveled against biotech agriculture by scientists and environmentalists. By planting millions of acres of genetically altered plants, we have introduced something novel into the environment and the food chain, the consequences of which are not -- and at this point, cannot be -- completely understood. One of the uncertainties has to do with those grains of pollen bumblebees are carting off. That pollen contains Bt genes that may wind up in some other, related plant, possibly conferring a new evolutionary advantage on that species. ''Gene flow,'' the scientific term for this phenomenon, occurs only between closely related species."  Scientists are worried about this "biological pollution."  Biological pollution has the potential to create "super" species like weeds or other noxious plants.

It is alarming that the "F.D.A. regulation of biotech food has been largely voluntary since 1992.  Under the guidelines, new proteins engineered into foods are regarded as additives (unless they're pesticides).  The determination whether a new protein is GRAS can be made by the company.  Companies with a new biotech food decide for themselves whether they need to consult with the F.D.A. by following a series of ''decision trees'' that pose yes or no questions like this one: 'Does. . .the introduced protein raise any safety concern?''"  Unfortunately, according to an executive with Monsanto, "Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food.  Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the F.D.A.'s job.'"  With a response like that, it appears no one is regulating biotech food.  The FDA leaves it up to the manufacturer and the manufacturer leaves it up to the FDA.

So, with all of this uncertainty about safety, how do we know if we are consuming a product that has been genetically modified?  There is absolutely no regulatory requirement in the US to indicate if a product has been genetically modified.  Residents of the State of California will have an opportunity to vote on a ballot measure in November's election to make it mandatory that products that contain or were derived from a genetically modified organism must be labeled as such.  This would mirror requirements in Europe.  Passing a law in California is similar to passing a nationwide law since manufacturers and growers will not label something one way for California residents and another for other states.  It is similar to the application of flame retardants.  California's laws have a way of becoming "standard" throughout the country.

The biggest opponent to this, obviously, is Monsanto who stands to lose millions of dollars should this pass.  There is an interesting blog post about a mother who tried to rid herself and her family from Monsanto's reach.  She found it difficult without labeling indicating a product has been genetically modified.  She also discovered just how many products contain a genetically modified organism.  There are also whole organizations dedicated to "exposing" Monsanto that you can read about.  A great article, published in 1998, details the controversies surrounding genetically modified crops.  Despite being 14 years old, many of the points addressed in the article are still relevent.

Since there are no labeling requirements, if you want tips for avoiding foods that are genetically modified, you can find them on my blog post from yesterday.

Is Monsanto a friend or foe?  Only you can decide.

How to Avoid Genetically Modified Food

I have stumbled across a few posts with tips to avoid genetically modified food or organisms (GMOs).  Since there are no mandatory labeling requirements for GMOs, how can you tell if something is genetically modified?  According to www.safe-food.org, "if you really want to avoid the influence of genetic engineering, buy fresh organic produce. If you want to buy processed foods and avoid genetically engineered ingredients, you will have to read product labels. If the label mentions any of the ingredients listed below without explicitly qualifying it as organic, then the product probably contains genetically engineered ingredients."  The following list was compiled from the safe-food website as well as from wikiHow:

• Soybeans: Gene taken from bacteria (Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4) and inserted into soybeans to make them more resistant to herbicides.  The following are soy products:  soy flour, soy oil, lecithin, soy protein isolates and concentrates. Products that may contain genetically engineered soy derivatives: vitamin E, tofu dogs, cereals, veggie burgers and sausages, tamari, soy sauce, chips, ice cream, frozen yogurt, infant formula, sauces, protein powder, margarine, soy cheeses, crackers, breads, cookies, chocolates, candies, fried foods, shampoo, bubble bath, cosmetics, enriched flours and pastas.
• Corn: There are two main varieties of GE corn. One has a Gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis inserted to produce the Bt toxin, which poisons Lepidoteran (moths and butterflies) pests.  There are also several events which are resistant to various herbicide. Present in high fructose corn syrup and glucose/fructose which is prevalent in a wide variety of foods in America.  The following are corn products:  corn flour, corn starch, corn oil, corn sweeteners, syrups. Products that may contain genetically engineered corn derivatives: vitamin C, tofu dogs, chips, candies, ice cream, infant formula, salad dressings, tomato sauces, breads, cookies, cereals, baking powder, alcohol, vanilla, margarine, soy sauce, tamari, soda, fried foods, powdered sugar, enriched flours and pastas.
• Rapeseed/Canola Oil:  Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to herbicide.  Products that may contain genetically engineered canola derivatives: chips, salad dressings, cookies, margarine, soaps, detergents, soy cheeses, fried foods.
• Sugar Beets:  Gene added/transferred to make crop more resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.
• Rice:  Genetically modified to resist herbicides; not currently available for human consumption, but trace amounts of one GM long-grained variety (LLRICE601) may have entered the food supply in the USA and Europe. More recently, golden rice, a different strain of rice has been engineered to produce significantly higher levels of beta carotene, which the body uses to produce vitamin A. Golden rice is still undergoing testing to determine if it is safe for human consumption.
• Cotton:  Engineered to produce Bt toxin. The seeds are pressed into cottonseed oil, which is a common ingredient in vegetable oil and margarine.  Products which contain cotton are:  oil, fabric. Products that may contain genetically engineered cotton or its derivatives: clothes, linens, chips, peanut butter, crackers, cookies. 
• Potatoes: Right now the only potato that has been genetically engineered is the Burbank Russet, but you still have to look out for potato starch and flour. Products that may contain genetically engineered potatoes or derivatives: unspecified processed or restaurant potato products (fries, mashed, baked, mixes, etc.), chips, Passover products, vegetable pies, soups. Fast-food chains appear to have responded to consumer concerns and requested genetically natural potatoes.
• Dairy Products: Cows injected with GE hormone rBGH/rBST; possibly fed GM grains and hay.  The following are dairy products:  milk, cheese, butter, buttermilk, sour cream, yogurt, whey. You have to ask several questions when you are looking at dairy products. Have the cows been treated with rBGH? What kind of feed have they been given? If they are not being fed organic grains, chances are quite likely that they will be eating genetically engineered animal feed. What does this do to their milk products? No one knows.
• Animal Products: Because animal feed often contains genetically engineered organisms, all animal products, or by-products may be affected.
• Papayas
• Farm Raised Salmon
• Aspartame/AminoSweet - Addictive and dangerous artificial sweetener commonly found in chewing gum and "diet" beverages. A building block of aspartame, the amino acid phenylalanine, is usually manufactured with the aid of genetically modified E. coli bacteria. This process has been used industrially in the USA for many years.

"Please note that a food may contain some of these items and yet be free from genetically engineered organisms, but we have no way of knowing without tracking down every brand, every product and every ingredient. Even reading labels is no guarantee that you will be able to avoid genetically engineered ingredients, because manufacturers are not required to list every little ingredient, enzyme or organism used in the manufacturing process. The following products may also be genetically altered, contain or originate from genetically engineered organisms: candies, cookies, breads, cereals, corn syrups, oils, juices, detergents, dough conditioners, yeast, sugar, animal feed, vitamins and enzymes used in the processing of cheese."

This is quite the list and almost impossible to check every label to find out if it contains these ingredients.  It is upsetting that as consumers in the United States, we do not have information up-front indicating if something contains a GMO.  The European Union (EU) has specific requirements for products containing greater than 0.9% of GMOs to be labeled as such.  The EU feels that "labeling provides information for consumers and allows them to make an informed choice. In the case of pre-packaged products consisting of, or containing, GMOs, the list of ingredients must indicate "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [name of the organism]". In the case of products without packaging these words must still be clearly displayed in close proximity to the product (such as a note on the supermarket shelf)."  Why can't Americans have the same ability to make an "informed choice" with mandatory labeling?

Since there are no mandatory labeling requirements in the US, the following taken from wikiHow is a list of 8 steps that can be taken to avoid genetically modified food in the absence of specific labeling.

1. Become familiar with the most common applications of genetic modification.
• See the list above for the most common applications of genetic modification (i.e. soybeans, corn, etc). 
2. Buy food labeled 100% organic.
• The US and Canadian governments do not allow manufacturers to label something 100% organic if that food has been genetically modified or been fed genetically modified feed. 
• Just because something says "organic" on it does not mean that it does not contain GMs. In fact, it can still contain up to 30% GMs, so be sure the labels say 100% organic.
• Eggs labeled "free-range", "natural", or "cage-free" are not necessarily GE-free; look for eggs to be 100% organic.
3. Recognize fruit and vegetable label numbers.

• If it is a 4-digit number, the food is conventionally produced.
• If it is a 5-digit number beginning with an 8, it is GM. However, do not trust that GE foods will have a PLU identifying it as such, because PLU labeling is optional.
• If it is a 5-digit number beginning with a 9, it is organic.
4. Purchase beef that is 100% grass-fed.
• Most cattle in the U.S. are grass-fed, but spend the last portion of their lives in feedlots where they may be given GM corn, the purpose of which is to increase intramuscular fat and marbling. 
• If you're looking to stay away from GMOs, make sure the cattle were 100% grass-fed or pasture-fed (sometimes referred to as grass-finished or pasture-finished). 
• The same applies to meat from other herbivores such as sheep. 
• There is also the slight possibility that the animals were fed GM alfalfa, although this is less likely if you buy meat locally. 
• With non-ruminants like pigs and poultry that cannot be 100% grass-fed, it's better to look for meat that is 100% organic.
5. Seek products that are specifically labeled as non-GM or GMO-free. 
6. Shop locally.
• Although more than half of all GM foods are produced in the US, most of it comes from large, industrial farms.
7. Buy whole foods.
• They don't mean the supermarket chain of the same name.
• Favor foods that you can cook and prepare yourself, rather than foods that are processed or prepared (e.g. anything that comes in a box or a bag, including fast food). 
8. Grow your own food.

Until there is more information available to determine if GMOs are safe both short-term and long-term and in the absence of any mandatory labeling requirements, as a consumer, we have to take the extra steps to determine if a product contains a GMO and make our own "informed choice."

What is rBST & what does it have to do with milk?

Since I've become a mother, I have noticed that milk and milk products will sometimes come with a label designating if it is "rBST free" or "no artificial growth hormones."

Butter, Yogurt, Buttermilk and Milk

What exactly is "rBST" or "artificial growth hormones?"  rBST stands for recombinant bovine somatotropin or recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or artificial growth hormone.   rBST was artificially synthesized using recombinant DNA technology to mimic bovine somatotropin.  Bovine somatotropin is a hormone naturally produced by a cow's pituitary gland.

rBST was first developed by a company called Monsato under the brand name Posilac.  Posilac was designed to be given to cows to produce more milk over the course of lactation by preventing or delaying the natural mammary cell death that happens during lactation.  "To apply Posilac for maximum effect, farmers are recommended to make the first Posilac application about 50 days into the cow's lactation, just before she peaks. The Posilac then sustains already-present mammary cells, limiting the rate of production decrease after production peaks. After the peak, production declines with or without application of Posilac, but declines more slowly with Posilac than without. This decrease in the rate of production decline permits dairy cows to produce more milk over the span of a lactation—at its best, this will be seen by seven to eight more pounds of milk being produced per day than would be produced without Posilac."  Posilac is available without a prescription and can be bought and administered by a farmer without the guidance of a veterinarian.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), approved the use of Posilac in 1993 after "determining that its use would be safe and effective. Part of the FDA’s safety evaluation was to ensure that milk from treated cows was safe for human food."  "FDA believes that the available data confirm that biologically significant amounts of rbGH are not absorbed in humans following the consumption of milk from cows treated with rbGH."

The FDA currently does not require dairy products to be labeled as having been derived from a cow treated with rBST.  "The agency found that there was no significant difference between milk from treated and untreated cows and, therefore, concluded that under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act), the agency did not have the authority in this situation to require special labeling for milk from rbST-treated cows.  FDA stated, however, that food companies that do not use milk from cows supplemented with rbST may voluntarily inform consumers of this fact in their product labels or labeling, provided that any statements made are truthful and not misleading."

If rBST is "safe and effective," why is there controversy surrounding its use?  It turns out that cows treated with rBST have higher levels of IGF-1.  According to the American Cancer Society, IGF-1 is a hormone that "helps some types of cells to grow. Several studies have found that IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of certain tumors. Some early studies found a relationship between blood levels of IGF-1 and the development of prostate, breast, colorectal, and other cancers, but later studies have failed to confirm these reports or have found weaker relationships. While there may be a link between IGF-1 blood levels and cancer, the exact nature of this link remains unclear."  "More research is needed to help better address these concerns."

The second controversy involves a side effect of rBST.  Cows treated with rBST tend to develop more mastitis (udder infections).  As a result, they are given more antibiotics than cows not treated with rBST.  If a cow is given more antibiotics, does it cause more antibiotic resistance and if so, does that resistance pass onto humans?  Will the organisms treated by these antibiotics be harder to eradicate if it were to infect a human?  This issue has "not been fully examined in humans."

A third controversy involves the effect rBST has on cows.  The European Union (EU) has banned the use of rBST based on the effects on the cow and not the effects on humans.  In cows, rBST "causes substantially and very significantly poorer welfare because of increased foot disorders, mastitis, reproductive disorders and other production related diseases. These are problems which would not occur if BST were not used and often results in unnecessary pain, suffering and distress. If milk yields were achieved by other means which resulted in the health disorders and other welfare problems described above, these means would not be acceptable. The injection of BST and its repetition every 14 days also causes localised swellings which are likely to result in discomfort and hence some poor welfare.  BST use causes a substantial increase in levels of foot problems and mastitis and leads to injection site reactions in dairy cows. These conditions, especially the first two, are painful and debilitating, leading to significantly poorer welfare in the treated animals. Therefore from the point of view of animal welfare, including health, the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare is of the opinion that BST should not be used in dairy cows."

Like the Europeans, Canadians have also banned the use of rBST based on the effects of the cow and not on the effects on humans.  "The veterinary experts cited an increased risk of mastitis of up to 25%, of infertility by 18%, and of lameness by up to 50%. These increased risks and overall reduced body condition lead to a 20-25% increased risk of culling from the herd.  The findings of the animal safety committee, when combined with our own assessment, made it quite clear that Health Canada had to reject the request for approval to use rbST in Canada, as it presents a sufficient and unacceptable threat to the safety of dairy cows.  The safety of both human and animal health are critical considerations when assessing a new veterinary drug."

It appears that the US is the only major country still using rBST.  However, despite the FDA's position that rBST is "safe and effective" many companies like Safeway, Starbucks and Tillamook are pledging to eliminate using milk products from cows treated with rBST.  Obviously, controversy is brewing with Monsato, the sole manufacturer of Posilac.  They stand to lose millions of dollars if more consumers opt out of purchasing milk from cows treated with their medication.  It is estimated that the company has spent "a much as $1 billion in research and development and makes upward of $270 million a year on sales of rBST."

On a personal level, as an animal lover and a mother, I am opting to buy products that do not come from cows treated with rBST.  Until more studies are done regarding the long term effects of growth hormone, I cannot justify exposing my children to that risk however small that may be at the moment.  Furthermore, it appears the cows really do suffer when given this medication.  This is another product that I can add to avoid.  Since this uses recombinant DNA technology, it would be considered by my definition, a genetically modified organism.

Healthy Home Tips for Parents

I am "stealing" part of today's post from the "Environmental Working Group's (EWG's) Healthy Home Tips for Parents."  I found this list online and found the tips useful.  You can read the entire file through the link above.  However, for this post, I am using the basic tips and embellishing them with things I've found on my own.

1. Choose better body care products.
• A good resource is the EWG's Skin Deep Database.  Through this database, you can find out more information about what is in common household cosmetics.  It also lists products with "safer" ingredients. 
• What you may not know about sunscreen
• Homemade Pet Shampoo
2. Go organic and eat fresh foods.
• Another great list to help you figure out what you should or should not eat organic is the "Dirty Dozen" list published by EWG.  They also publish a list called the "Clean 15."  Items on the "Clean 15" are the lowest in pesticides and it is OK to not buy organic for these foods.
• When should your child eat organic?
• Choosing organic will also help you to avoid eating foods that are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's).  
3. Avoid fire retardants.
• A label on a product indicating that it meets California's "Technical Bulletin 117" usually means that the product has been treated with a fire retardant.  I've written two other blog posts about this which you can read for more detailed explanations.     
4. Pick plastics carefully.
• I have also written three blog posts about plastics and what to look out for when purchasing items made of plastic.   I would generally avoid plastic items labeled with the SPI Resin Identification Codes of Vinyl, PS and Other.  These are indicated with the numbers #3, #6, and #7.
• I have found an interesting post on ways to "Banish plastic from your kitchen."
5. Filter your tap water.
• Tips and reasons to filter your tap water.
• Is there lead in your water?
6. Wash those hands.
• The CDC has excellent recommendations and tips for proper hand washing.  Most people do not wash their hands often or long enough.  You should rub your hands while washing for at least 20 seconds.  That is enough time to sing the "Happy Birthday" song twice from beginning to end. 
7. Skip non-stick.
• Teflon, is the name of a synthetic polymer which coats non-stick cooking ware.  Teflon when heated at high temperatures can emit toxic fumes.  These fumes have killed pet birds and have caused flu-like symptoms in humans.
• Cooking with a well seasoned cast iron skillet can give you the same results as a Teflon coated skillet.  It can also be used from the stovetop to the oven.
8.   Use a HEPA-filter vacuum.
• A HEPA filter is a type of air filter that "must remove 99.97% of all particles greater than 0.3 micrometer from the air that passes through."  A "HEPA filter traps the fine particles (such as pollen and dust mite feces) which trigger allergy and asthma symptoms."
9. Get your iodine.
• "Use iodized salt, especially while pregnant and nursing, and take iodine-containing prenatal vitamins. Iodine buffers against chemicals like perchlorate, which can disrupt your thyroid system and affect brain development during pregnancy and infancy."
10. Use greener cleaners and avoid pesticides.
• You can find many tips on-line for "natural" cleaning solutions and non-toxic pesticide.  The following are links to some of the things I've found over the last few months.
• How to kill mildew naturally
• 9 ways to use rice around the house
• Natural Remedies for a Teething Baby
• Natural Air Freshners
• Do Natural Cleaners Really Work?
• Homemade Laundry Detergent
• How to make good use of bad wine
• Uses for vinegar:  Tips and ideas
• How to clean an iron
• 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
• 24 smart uses for sugar
• The (never-ending) uses of baking soda
• 24 things you can clean with a lemon
• Make your own disinfectant spray
• 30 ways to detox your home and body
• How can I go green for my newborn?
11. Eat good fats.
• Eat those omega-3 fatty acids.  

Mandatory Labeling for Genetically Modified Organisms?

I wrote a blog post a few days ago about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and lamented at the lack of labeling requirements for them.  Well, it turns out that voters in California will get the opportunity to vote on mandatory labeling requirements for Genetically Modified Organisms during the election in November.  The California Secretary of State Certified a ballot measure for voters to decide if manufacturers or producers should be required to indicate if their product contains GMOs.  There are currently no requirements for this on the federal or state level.

The California Secretary of State stated the following about the ballot initiative, "Genetically Engineered Foods. Mandatory Labeling.":
"Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as “natural.” Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure."

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO's)

I have been reading a lot lately about Genetically Modified Organisms or GMOs for short.  According to the Human Genome Project, genetic modification (GM) "is a special set of technologies that alter the genetic makeup of organisms such as animals, plants, or bacteria.  Combining genes from different organisms is known as recombinant DNA technology, and the resulting organism is said to be "genetically modified," "genetically engineered," or "transgenic." GM products (current or those in development) include medicines and vaccines, foods and food ingredients, feeds, and fibers."

Why would anyone want to genetically modify an organism?  The following is a list of benefits and controversies as described by the Human Genome Project:

Benefits

• Crops
• Enhanced taste and quality
• Reduced maturation time
• Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
• Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
• New products and growing techniques
• Animals
• Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
• Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
• Improved animal health and diagnostic methods
• Environment
• "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
• Conservation of soil, water, and energy
• Bioprocessing for forestry products
• Better natural waste management
• More efficient processing
• Society
• Increased food security for growing populations

Controversies

• Safety
• Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
• Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Access and Intellectual Property
• Domination of world food production by a few companies
• Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
• Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
• Ethics
• Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
• Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
• Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
• Stress for animal
• Labeling
• Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
• Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
• Society
• New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

This has become a world-wide issue and the World Health Organization has addressed this topic.  From a global perspective, the aspect of having food with an "increased level of crop protection through the introduction of resistance against plant diseases caused by insects or viruses or through increased tolerance towards herbicides" may yield "a product with a lower price, greater benefit (in terms of durability or nutritional value) or both."  However, there is much that is unknown about the long-term consequences of GMOs.  The WHO conducts a "safety assessment" of GM foods which "generally investigates: (a) direct health effects (toxicity), (b) tendencies to provoke allergic reaction (allergenicity); (c) specific components thought to have nutritional or toxic properties; (d) the stability of the inserted gene; (e) nutritional effects associated with genetic modification; and (f) any unintended effects which could result from the gene insertion."  The WHO's main issues for human health regarding GMOs are:

• Allergenicity. As a matter of principle, the transfer of genes from commonly allergenic foods is discouraged unless it can be demonstrated that the protein product of the transferred gene is not allergenic. While traditionally developed foods are not generally tested for allergenicity, protocols for tests for GM foods have been evaluated by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and WHO. No allergic effects have been found relative to GM foods currently on the market.
• Gene transfer. Gene transfer from GM foods to cells of the body or to bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract would cause concern if the transferred genetic material adversely affects human health. This would be particularly relevant if antibiotic resistance genes, used in creating GMOs, were to be transferred. Although the probability of transfer is low, the use of technology without antibiotic resistance genes has been encouraged by a recent FAO/WHO expert panel.
• Outcrossing. The movement of genes from GM plants into conventional crops or related species in the wild (referred to as “outcrossing”), as well as the mixing of crops derived from conventional seeds with those grown using GM crops, may have an indirect effect on food safety and food security. This risk is real, as was shown when traces of a maize type which was only approved for feed use appeared in maize products for human consumption in the United States of America. Several countries have adopted strategies to reduce mixing, including a clear separation of the fields within which GM crops and conventional crops are grown.

Information about the European Unions' stance of GMOs can be found here.

As far back as 1992, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "published its "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties" (the 1992 policy) in the Federal Register of May 29, 1992 (57 FR 22984).  The 1992 policy clarified the agency's interpretation of the application of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act with respect to human foods and animal feeds derived from new plant varieties and provided guidance to industry on scientific and regulatory issues related to these foods. The 1992 policy applied to all foods derived from all new plant varieties, including varieties that are developed using recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (rDNA) technology. This site refers to foods derived from plant varieties that are developed using rDNA technology as "bioengineered foods."  It is "recommended that developers consult with FDA about bioengineered foods under development; since issuance of the 1992 policy, developers have routinely done so.  These procedures describe a process in which a developer who intends to commercialize a bioengineered food meets with the agency to identify and discuss relevant safety, nutritional, or other regulatory issues regarding the bioengineered food and then submits to FDA a summary of its scientific and regulatory assessment of the food; FDA evaluates the submission and responds to the developer by letter."

While the FDA "recommends developers consult with the FDA about bioengineered foods under development", the "FDA has no basis for concluding that bioengineered foods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern than foods developed by traditional plant breeding.  Although the 1992 policy does not require special labeling for bioengineered foods, the agency advised in that policy that labeling requirements that apply to foods in general also apply to foods produced using biotechnology."

If the FDA does not require bioengineered food to be labeled and you choose not to eat genetically modified food, how can you be certain that a food was not cultivated using GMO?  If a food is certified organic by the United States Department of Agriculture, then it cannot contain any GMO.  "The use of GMOs is prohibited in all ingredients in “organic” and “made with organic (specified ingredients or food groups(s)).” "To be sold or labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s)),” the product must not have been produced with "a variety of methods used to genetically modify organisms or influence their growth and development by means that are not possible under natural conditions or processes and are not considered compatible with organic production. Such methods include cell fusion, microencapsulation and macroencapsulation, and recombinant DNA technology (including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing the positions of genes when achieved by recombinant DNA technology)."  There is a great blog post written a few days ago (I'm a little behind in the topics I want to cover) by a former staff writer at Gourmet Magazine that has some great tips for avoiding GMOs in your food.  

I have to admit that I am a little torn regarding this issue.  Sure it sounds weird and almost "Frankenstein-like" to think that humans are "engineering" new plant and animal products by manipulating genes.  However, at the same time, I understand the important advances that have been made using bioengineering.  Especially in areas where there is poor soil or other conditions affecting crop yield, it has been beneficial.  It has also been beneficial in medicine where vaccines and medications used to treat diseases such as autoimmune diseases and cancer have been developed through biotechnology.  Until more information is available about the long-term safety regarding GMOs, I cannot say with absolute certainty that I am completely against it.  However, I do think that consumers need to be given the tools to make informed decisions about these products through mandatory labeling requirements.  I do not think its fair that consumers are not given a choice to avoid GMOs if they are unaware that a product even contains GMOs.  I think the FDA needs to step in and make it mandatory for manufacturers to indicate that a product has a GMO in it.