A toxic herbicide puts the whooping crane and Indiana bat, two endangered species, at further risk. This is all in violation of the Endangered Species Act, according to a new lawsuit.

A coalition of farmers and environmental groups has filed a motion to protect the endangered whooping crane and Indiana bat from extinction. A new toxic herbicide to be used on GMO crops violates the Endangered Species Act, according to the claim. The lawsuit is part of an earlier motion led by Center for Food Safety and Earthjustice on behalf of Beyond Pesticides, Center for Biological Diversity, Center for Food Safety, Environmental Working Group, the National Family Farm Coalition, and Pesticide Action Network North America.

The Endangered Species Act requires that EPA and other federal agencies determine whether their actions impact the “critical habitat” of any species in a way that would endanger their continued existence.

“EPA is well aware that pesticides routinely drift and affect public health and wildlife beyond the fields in which they are sprayed. To ignore this known risk and avoid consultation with other expert agencies is unlawful and irresponsible,” said George Kimbrell, senior attorney for Center for Food Safety.

“EPA admits that its approval of a toxic pesticide cocktail including 2,4-D for widespread use may affect endangered species, including the whooping crane, one of the most endangered animals on earth,” said Earthjustice managing attorney Paul Achitoff. “We ask only that the Court decide whether EPA has violated the law, as we believe it has before putting these imperiled birds at further risk.”

Whooping cranes are an incredibly endangered bird, recovering from a low of just 21 birds in the 1940s to 599 birds in the wild today. This majestic creature, the tallest flying bird in North America, continues to be threatened by deterioration of its habitat, low genetic diversity, power line collisions, disturbance of nesting sites, and illegal shooting. The Indiana bat is also endangered due to habitat degradation, pesticides, environmental contaminants, and human disturbance.

The growing use of pesticides and herbicides on farmland across the nation have put a growing number of species in harm’s way and it’s devastating to think that a majestic bird species as well as the valuable Indiana bat will fall victim to the widespread use of toxic substances like these. The new powerful herbicide is a reaction to glyphosate-resistant super weeds that resulted from the overuse of glyphosate (the main ingredient in Monsanto’s RoundUp) on GMO RoundUp Ready Crops. Another herbicide meant to kill off glyphosate resistant super weeds is however likely to cause even more super weeds. These mutant weeds will find a way to thrive in areas where they’re not meant to survive.

According to Center for Food Safety, “Dow Chemical has presented 2,4-D resistant crops as a quick fix to the problem, but independent scientists, as well as USDA analysis, predict that the Enlist crop system will only foster more weed resistance.”

Related on EcoSalon

Monarch Butterfly May Soon Be on the Endangered Species Act 

7 Endangered Species Making a Comeback

Mass Extinction Imminent: Half of All Wild Animals Gone in the Last 40 Years

Image of a flying whooping crane from Shuttershock

The post Highly Endangered Whooping Crane at Risk Because of a Newly Approved Toxic Herbicide appeared first on EcoSalon.

Genetically modified food is a hot button issue. But state labeling bills keep failing to pass. Could it be that we’re not as informed about the issue as we think? 

While Oregon is still counting ballots from the vote earlier this month that was favored to win, Colorado’s GMO labeling ballot initiative lost by a landslide. Much of that has to do with the millions of dollars spent by Big Food and Ag to defeat the measure. But we can’t blame them entirely, can we?

A few weeks ago while shopping at my local farmers market, I overheard a conversation that stopped me in my tracks:

Woman: Are these avocados genetically modified?

Vendor: No, ma’am, they’re certified organic. See the sign?

Woman: Yes, but how do I know they’re not GMO? There’s so much genetically modified food out there.

At this point, I politely butted in and told the confused woman that for one, there are no genetically modified avocados commercially available, and second, the organic certification ensure customers that whatever food they’re buying is not genetically modified. The seller looked relieved but the woman became even more confused and challenged my response: “Why should I believe that there are no GMO avocados? Basically everything we eat is GMO.”

I knew it was a losing battle, so I took my organic avocados and suggested she spend some time researching it. But I couldn’t get the conversation out of my head. It reminded me of another chat I had with an acquaintance several years ago. She has celiac disease, the condition that makes digesting gluten somewhat of a nightmare. She casually told me the reason she developed the disease was likely due to all the genetically modified wheat. Which, I gently told her, doesn’t actually exist. She also refused to believe me, so I changed the subject, not wanting to press the issue.

In Jeremy Seifert’s award winning film, “GMO OMG”, he polls random people about what GMOs are. Jimmy Kimmel recently conducted a similar stunt, and the results are funny but also really sad because they illustrate that not only do Americans have no idea what they’re eating, they don’t really seem to care very much. They may say they want to avoid eating GMOs with firm resolve, but when it comes down to explaining in the simplest terms what a GMO is, most people are stumped, confused and misinformed.

But if we really want “the right to know” what’s in our food, we have to be better informed. We should know the most common culprits for GMOs (soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, cottonseed oil, meat, eggs, dairy). We should also know which foods are generally safe, like whole, unprocessed foods, like avocados, organic or not.

It’s also probably in our best interest to not lambast Monsanto ad nauseum, even though the company is hegemonic and largely responsible for genetically modified food and the herbicide (Roundup) most often used on the crops. But it’s not the only company producing GMO seeds. Others, like Syngenta, Dow, Dupont and Bayer CropScience are creating numerous genetically modified seeds and companion pesticides and herbicides that threaten our food, health and environment. To localize our frustration on one company can prevent us from seeing the damage these other companies are causing until it’s too late.

We can’t assume that illuminati-affiliated evil overlords are producing all of our food. Victimization can be crippling. We do still have choices – lots of them. And if we want to see GMO labeling ballot initiatives pass, we have to peer past the fear-mongering of sites like Natural News and Foodbabe just as much as we have to look past the Big Food and Ag companies telling us their products are perfectly safe, sustainable and environmentally sound.

Fifty years ago we really could be misinformed. A lot of that cluelessness has led us to this point in the first place. We’ve given corporations too much wiggle room, and now they’re intent on taking even more. But we’re too connected now to be misinformed. There’s too much at stake. Do we want to be actively engaged in deciding what type of future our children will inherit or do we want to play Words with Friends?

A revolution doesn’t have to be an uprising. It can be a slow shift over time, successful mostly as a result of our spending power. But we tend to look at revolution like other things that are healthy for us – like that juicer sitting in the cabinet. It’s right there. We know it has the power to change our lives, but all we can think about is the hassle of taking it all apart, cleaning it out and then putting it back together. But now more than ever, we need to do what we can to get informed on the issue of genetically modified food. Then, we need to vote for labeling every time we can and be able to talk with our friends and family about this issue. It’s everyone’s right to know and everyone’s responsibility.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

California Bans GMO Salmon Production

Chipotle Labels GMOs…So, Should You Still Eat There?

GMO Cotton Pest Resistance: Tragically Threatening Low-Income Farmers in the US, India, South Africa

Image: Nigel Hanlon

The post Do You Really Know Enough About Genetically Modified Food? appeared first on EcoSalon.

GMO salmon have been a point of contention for a while now as the FDA sits on the issue. But California is taking major steps to keep so-called frankenfish out of their neck of the woods.

Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill banning the commercial production of GMO salmon in California waters in an effort to protect native species.

AB 504 will protect California’s native chinook and coho salmon species, like those prevalent in San Francisco’s Humboldt Bay. The salmon are already dealing a crippling drought, according to the bill’s author Wesley Chesbro of Arcata, and GMO salmon could destroy native populations.

“I thank Governor Brown for understanding the importance of protecting California wild salmon and steelhead from the threat of transgenic modification,” said Chesbro to EcoWatch. “The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing an application by a company that seeks to produce a farmed salmon in the United States that has been genetically altered to grow faster than native salmon. If these ‘frankenfish’ were to escape into our waters, they could destroy our native salmonid populations through interbreeding, competition for food and the introduction of parasites and disease. The only way to ensure this never happens is to ban commercial hatchery production, cultivation or stocking of transgenic salmonids in California.”

The bill extends to the Pacific Ocean and all waters in the state while banning GMO hatchery production.

“California has taken has taken an important step to protect its native salmon and trout stocks,” west coast director for The Center for Food Safety, Rebecca Spector said to EcoWatch. “Genetically engineered salmon pose a serious risk to our waterways and our native fish populations. This bill expands a 2003 law to include all waterways within the state of California. Unfortunately it opens a loophole for research that could lead to dangerous fish escapes.”

The one downside is that the bill does allow for GMO salmon and trout to be grown for research in tanks right by the waterway. And in the event of a storm, the tanks could be wiped out allowing the fish to escape.

Related on EcoSalon

Chipotle Moves to Label GMOs But Should You Still Eat There

20 Genetically Modified Foods Coming to Your Plate

Behind the Label, The Kashi Controversy

Image: Melissa Doroquez

The post California Bans GMO Salmon Production appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnChobani, the best-selling Greek yogurt in the U.S., has tapped into a market for healthy food, but is it all it claims? We go behind the label to find out.

Founded in 2005 by Turkish immigrant Hamdi Ulukaya, Chobani finally launched in 2007 to critical acclaim. The company now commands the top spot in the booming $2 billion a year Greek yogurt category–boasting more than 70 products, and a team of more than two thousand employees around the world.

The Good

Greek yogurt is higher in protein than regular yogurt—about twice as much—and Chobani positions this protein source as an excellent workout food. The company also claims its ingredients are “all natural,” and while not organic, Chobani also says none of the dairy used comes from cows fed rBST—the controversial growth hormone common in conventional dairy. But while they claim not to use rBST, the Chobani website also states “According to the FDA, no significant difference has been shown, and no test can now distinguish, between milk from rBST treated cows and untreated cows.”

Chobani products avoid the use of artificial sweeteners. “The sugars found in our products come from milk (lactose), real fruit (fructose), honey and evaporated cane juice (which is less processed than white table sugar and is used to sweeten the fruit, vanilla and chocolate chunk preps used in our authentic strained Greek yogurt products).”

The Shepherd’s Gift Foundation is Chobani’s charitable arm, giving ten percent of all profits to nearly twenty organizations including the Making Waves to Fight Cancer organization, Earthquake relief efforts in Erds, Turkey, Luke’s Wings and Chenango Memorial Hospital.

The Bad

GMO Inside, the nonprofit organization working to bring attention to genetically modified ingredients in food, recently targeted Chobani for the use of the word “natural,” which is featured prominently on all of its product packaging, website and marketing materials. It’s even earned the conventional yogurt brand a spot in most Whole Foods markets, the retail chain that recently announced it would label all GMOs in its stores by 2018.

While the company does not use milk from dairy cows fed artificial growth hormones, it also does not source organic milk, GMO Inside points out. Conventional dairy cows are most often fed genetically modified alfalfa, corn and soy.  The World Health Organization defines GMOs as not occurring naturally. Several leading food producers have faced class action lawsuits over use of the term “natural” on foods that contained GMOs. As a result of the GMO Inside campaign, thousands of customers have petitioned Chobani to switch to organic dairy. But instead of changing its ingredients to those that are truly natural, it appears the company is simply shifting its marketing strategy, opting to focus on the word “real” instead of “natural”, which the company has used for some time.

Even though the company adheres to a ‘no artificial sweetener’ policy, its use of cane sugar landed Chobani with a class action lawsuit in 2012 alleging that the amount of added cane sugar (roughly one-third of the product’s sugar content) violated both federal and California law over ‘no added sugar’ claims. In July 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Chobani would not have to pull its products from store shelves over the mislabeling, but did acknowledge the plaintiff’s claim that the products are mislabeled.

The other major issue that’s giving Chobani a bad name is the manufacturing process. One ounce of the Greek yogurt requires three to four ounces of fresh milk, which produces a very acidic whey by-product once processed. According to an expose in Modern Farmer, “it’s a thin, runny waste product that can’t simply be dumped. Not only would that be illegal, but whey decomposition is toxic to the natural environment, robbing oxygen from streams and rivers. That could turn a waterway into what one expert calls a “dead sea,” destroying aquatic life over potentially large areas. Spills of cheese whey, a cousin of Greek yogurt whey, have killed tens of thousands of fish around the country in recent years.”

The Questionable

The large quantities in acid whey are such a huge problem for Chobani that they’re paying farmers to take it off their hands, but there may be another option. Dave Barbano, a dairy scientist at Cornell thinks the protein in acid whey may find a use in infant formula.

While that might very well do away with some of the whey waste, it is essentially offering newborns a concentrated genetically modified food, and GMOs have been linked to a number of serious health issues. Newborns and infants have particularly sensitive digestive systems, which may not be the healthiest use for genetically modified whey.

Recently, the USDA invited Chobani to supply pilot schools with its Greek yogurt as part of efforts to provide school children healthier meals. If successful, the plan is to roll out the Greek yogurt offering to all of the U.S. school systems.

A higher protein food, Greek yogurt may be a step up from the Pink Slime U.S. schools were serving recently. But a six-ounce serving of fruit flavored Chobani can contain as much as 20 grams of sugar (five teaspoons). The recommendation for children is no more than three teaspoons of sugar per day. Granted, some of the sugars in Chobani yogurts are naturally occurring from fruit and the dairy, but cane sugar is the third ingredient listed on its popular blueberry flavor.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: Mr. T in DC

Related stories

Behind the Label: Ben & Jerry’s 

Chipotle Labels GMOs…So Should You Still Eat There?

The post Chobani Greek Yogurt: Naturally Healthy or Not? Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

It’s news as big as an overstuffed veggie burrito:  Chipotle, the popular Mexican-inspired fast food chain, has labeled GMO ingredients on its website. And there are a lot of them.

Chipotle’s announcement is progress. No other restaurant, or food manufacturer for that matter, labels GMOs. In the U.S., anyway. Whole Foods has given themselves five years to put a GMO labeling program in place. Some manufacturers are non-GMO verified by the Non-GMO Project, but for the most part, we’re left in the dark intentionally as the biotech industry and major food manufacturers seek to keep us from making informed decisions about what foods we put in our bodies, and what impacts our food choices have on the planet. (Because informed consumers tend to buy less of the processed stuff, which means big trouble for corporate profits.) Instead, they give us the perception of choice: do you want Cool Ranch or Nacho Cheese flavored Doritos? Cherry or Strawberry flavored yogurt filled with artificial flavors, sweeteners and colors? Diet Pepsi or Diet Coke? It’s easy to overlook the fresh vegetables and fruits, whole grains and beans when we’re being asked to navigate these other food “categories.” The proof is in our skyrocketing obesity and Type 2 diabetes rates.

That’s what makes Chipotle so, well, awesome. Their menu doesn’t bog you down with McGimmicks, just healthy choices: taco or burrito? Brown rice or white? Pinto beans or black beans? Choosing healthy, simple ingredients offers consumers a break from the branded world of foodstuffs, and any familiarity with whole ingredients is a step towards fixing our diet issues. Sustainability and healthy ingredients have been core focuses that set Chipotle apart from other chains. Chipotle has proven that locally sourced ingredients and healthier meat and dairy products can be utilized in a fast food environment while still being affordable (and tasty). The chain looks to support farmers as much as the consumer with its menu items and quality commitments. Their gimmick is no gimmick. And it’s refreshing.

In countries where GMO labeling laws are in effect, consumer support typically dwindles for GMO products. Manufacturers reformulate. Monsanto, the targeted company for the anti-GMO movement, recently announced it would be withdrawing applications from the European Union for GMO crops. The science just isn’t there on the long-term health implications of foods that are designed to tolerate massive amounts of pesticides. We’re already seeing the environmental impact with pesticide and herbicide resistant bugs and weeds, and those that can’t tolerate the chemicals–particularly important pollinators facing epidemic level die-offs that now threaten the global food supply.

How Chipotle even determined what ingredients are genetically modified is impressive considering there’s little in the way of paper trails. GMO-free options don’t seem to exist in the quantities they need, the company claims. And it doesn’t sound like they have plans any time soon to reformulate their menu offerings to be 100 percent GMO-free. But they could, considering one of the most common GMO ingredients on the menu is soybean oil. (The company notes it’s working to transition from soybean to rice bran oil in most markets.) Corn may be a bit more difficult, understandably, but adding a GMO-free (organic) option could sweeten the deal for consumers wanting to avoid GMOs (but still enjoy a taco).

Still, the question isn’t whether or not Chipotle can change their menu offerings, but whether disclosure is just as good. The responses are mixed. Some consumers are saying they’re thrilled, congratulating Chipotle and swearing to continue to support the chain. Others are turned off by the presence of GMOs and will no longer eat there. Is the move a victory? Or does it just emphasize the overwhelming prevalence of GMOs in American food?

Related stories

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food with Integrity

Vegan Burrito Recipe with Kidney Beans and Kabocha Squash Cheese

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: punctuated

The post Chipotle Labels GMOs…So, Should You Still Eat There? appeared first on EcoSalon.

People can be so convincing. Especially when it comes to food.

Humans love enthusiasm. We adore showmanship and passion. Attend a four-hour long Bruce Springsteen concert or the Super Bowl, and see if you don’t leave feeling inspired and renewed in the human spirit (if also a bit exhausted…and broke). It’s why pundits run the gamut of extremes; because for (almost) every opinion out there, some open mind will listen–and form more opinions.

It’s all ego stuff, if we want to get technical…ideas occupy the mind, the identity of who we are and our purpose. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, particularly if we do good things with what we learn and believe. It’s also a cunning wolf-in-sheep’s-clothing game for marketers and multinational (food) corporations.

Take into consideration the great lengths corporations go to in order to sell you their packaged, processed foodstuffs, and the pieces begin to fall into place. It’s definitely at the heart of fear-mongering tactics designed to keep you from eating the healthiest food options.

When the Environmental Working Group recently released their 9^th annual Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen produce guides to pesticides in produce, it’s no surprise that industry trade group United Fresh Produce Association said: “it is irresponsible to mislead consumers with a sensational publicity stunt disguised as science.” They made this claim despite the fact that the EWG takes its rankings directly from U.S. government data on produce. But, apparently, the UFPA wants you to not worry about pesticides. Now who’s sensational? The conventional produce industry certainly doesn’t want you to buy fruits and vegetables that are organic and locally grown on a small farm. In fact, they’d prefer it if you buy the safest of all: canned or frozen.

The same tactic is behind the lawsuit that got New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s soda ban overturned. Despite everything we know about sodas—particularly their effects on children—the industry turned the issue into a discussion about Big Government and Americans losing their rights. As if we were one sip away from being imprisoned, stripped of our identities, and sent to government labor camps.

Or, take the raw milk issue. Nearly half of all U.S. states ban the sale of raw dairy products because of the “health risks,” but there are still minimal regulations on the health or safety of the places (you cannot call them farms) where the overwhelming majority of our nation’s dairy comes from. These filthy, sad, terrifying and inhumane massive factories produce far more health risks than a glass of milk from a loved and well-tended to cow. You know the kind, they have a name, not a number stapled to their ear or branded into their hide.

Then of course, there’s the hot button food issue of our time: GMOs. Giant chemical companies now own patents on most of what’s on the average American’s dinner plate. They claim to be advancing food science, our safety, our farming culture. They tell us non-GMO crops are bug-infested and nutrient-deficient inferior-quality products. We must support GMOs because it’s our duty to our farmers, our children, our health. But we know the opposite is true. Even if their science was on point, why go to all the trouble to patent and protect seeds? It’s a motive as murky as the misty trail of pesticides lingering over a field of GMO corn.

So, why do they do it? Why do they want us to be scared of healthy food?

If Profit, Power and Control aren’t answer enough, we must also consider that this is how things have been done for a while. Like Gandhi said, ridicule and resistance come before acceptance. Even as moral as the issues clearly seem to be, there really are no rules—defining what food should be is a very fine line. For some of us, eating ethically, organically and mindfully makes a lot of sense. For others, eating cheap, fast and at the expense of others is just as reasonable.

In many instances in our food industry, there are genuine people who truly believe in what they’re doing—even when that’s beating animals into submission, or telling a farmer he’s going to face a lawsuit for unauthorized planting of a GMO seed. Similar to The Boss giving his best performance night after night, or an athlete playing the game of his career on the Super Bowl field, people are driven to do what they feel drawn to. And as much as we might disagree with the tactics employed by our food system, we must remember, they’re people too, driven by their own motivations. And while those motivations may be greed and fear, like any motivation, it can change. In fact, it’s often those who’ve been deeply entwined in the corruption of an industry that become the most valuable voices of opposition. The fact is, for now at least, Big-Ag will continue to try and scare you. They’ll try to seduce you. Sometimes, they’ll probably even win. But eventually, they’ll lose.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: freezelight

The post Why the Food Industry Loves to Scare Us Into Eating Scarier Food appeared first on EcoSalon.

In the absence of government action, citizens take on GMO labeling themselves.

You know the saying: “if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.” That’s especially true when change moves at the speed of politics and we need something done now.

Label It Yourself is a decentralized, grassroots movement that lets consumers label foods containing genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. It’s an idea that combines elements of DIY,  culture jamming, and a even a bit of the Occupy movement to basically give a big, fat middle finger to policy makers who refuse to regulate the spread of genetically engineered organisms, and the global corporations that lobby against such regulations.

You can start now. Download the artwork, print up a bunch on label sheets, head out to the grocery store, and slap labels on packaged foods that likely contain GE ingredients.

They won’t be hard to find. It’s estimated that up to 70% of packaged foods contain some GE material.

Tips for identification:

1. Start with any non-certified organic packaged food containing any of the top genetically modified food crops—corn, soy, canola (rapeseed), and sugar beets.

2. Don’t stop there. Read ingredient labels to look for derivatives of those crops commonly found in packaged foods. These include corn flour, corn oil, corn starch, corn syrup, fructose, dextrose, and glucose, modified food starch, soy flour, lecithin, soy protein, soy protein isolate, and isoflavone. Also look for cottonseed oil (as much as 93% of US-grown cotton is genetically modified). Vegetable oil and vegetable protein are suspect since they could easily be derived from GE soy, corn, canola, or cotton.

3. Identify sweeteners: After the approval of GE sugar beets, acreage in production exploded, making any non-organic product that lists sugar, but doesn’t designate it as 100% cane sugar, suspect.

Kellogg is already feeling the pain of the Label it Yourself movement. Activists began posting photos of the label on Kellogg’s corn flakes on Kellogg’s Facebook Page, although Kellogg’s keeps taking it down.

For all you rule followers, there’s positive news regarding the various political efforts to label GE foods: The Just Label it Campaign, which is gathering signatures to ask the FDA to initiate Federal labeling has 1 million signatures and counting. California’s Right to Know campaign garnered enough support among voters to qualify for November’s ballot. None of these efforts are mutually exclusive. Polls consistently show that 90% of American consumers want GE food labeled, so they can decide on their own.

Now, if we could just take on global warming ourselves.

The post Label It Yourself Movement Raises Awareness About GMOs appeared first on EcoSalon.

Good luck distinguishing these Frankenfoods from real, natural food as they flood our supermarkets.

Genetically altered to withstand heavy applications of toxic chemicals, resist disease or contain more nutrients, so-called “Frankenfoods” are appearing on supermarket shelves at a rapid rate. Currently, genetically modified (GM) corn and soy can be found in many processed foods, and the produce section may contain GM zucchini, corn on the cob and papaya. But beyond those that have already been approved for human consumption, many more GMOs are on the way – and they probably won’t be labeled. These 20 crops and animal products include both those that are already available (whether we like it or not) and some that are still in development, like cows that produce human breast milk.

Corn

If you eat any kind of processed food on a regular basis – tortilla chips, cereal, granola bars – chances are, you consume genetically modified corn. The Center for Food Safety estimates that over 70% of the processed foods in American grocery stores contain genetically modified corn or soy. Corn is altered to contain proteins that kill insects that eat them, so they effectively produce their own pesticides.

Rice

Rice plants are often modified to be resistant to herbicides and pests, to increase grain size and to generate nutrients that don’t exist in the grain naturally. Varieties include Bayer’s herbicide-resistant “LibertyLink” rice, vitamin A-infused “golden rice” and the bizarre Ventria Bioscience “Express Tec” rice, which has been altered to contain human proteins naturally found in breast milk. The latter is used globally in infant formula.

Tomatoes

Among the first foods to be genetically altered, GM tomatoes have been developed to be unnaturally high in anti-oxidants, to have more intense flavor and to stay fresh longer. While there are not currently any genetically modified tomatoes on store shelves, they’re being used extensively by scientists to study the function of genes that are naturally present in the plants.

Soybeans

The most common genetically engineered food of all is the soybean. Since 1996, scientists have been creating varieties of soybeans that are resistant to both pests and herbicides, and they wind up in places you’d least expect them, like candy bars. A new GM soybean with higher levels of healthy oils was approved by the USDA in 2010; chemical companies DuPont and Monsanto are both working on their own versions of the biotech bean.

Cotton

We don’t think of cotton as a food, and technically it isn’t – but we still end up eating it. Cotton isn’t classified as a food crop, so farmers can use any chemicals they want when growing it. That means cottonseed oil, which is present in products like mayonnaise and salad dressing, can be packed full of pesticides. Along with soy, corn and canola, cotton grown for oil extraction is one of the most frequently genetically modified crops in the world.

Canola Oil

Canola, a cultivar of rapeseed, produces one of the most commonly consumed food oils, and it’s one of America’s biggest cash crops. What you may not know is that canola stands for “Canadian oil, low acid,” referring to a variety of rapeseed developed in the 1970s. 80% of the acres of canola sown in the U.S. are genetically modified, and a 2010 study in North Dakota found that the modified genes of these plants have spread to 80% of wild natural rapeseed plants.

Sugar Beets

Despite the fact that an environmental impact study has yet to be completed, the USDA has announced that farmers may now plant Monsanto’s Roundup Ready sugar beets, which have been altered to withstand the company’s herbicide. This decision comes despite a 2010 court order that prohibited planting the GMO beets until the study was performed. Sugar beets provide about half of America’s sugar.

Salmon

Salmon may become the first genetically modified animal to be approved for direct human consumption. The FDA has decided that a variety of GM salmon that grow twice as fast as their natural, un-modified peers is both safe to eat and safe for the environment.

“We’re looking here at a scenario where the fish might wind up sooner or later in the ocean,” Brian Ellis, plant biotechnologist at the University of British Columbia Vancouver, told Discovery News. “I think if we go down this route, we have to be prepared to accept some potentially unknown consequences.”

Sugar Cane

Providing the other half of America’s precious sugar, sugar cane is set to debut on our shelves in genetically modified form sometime soon. Brazil’s state-owned agricultural research agency has been hard at work developing drought-resistant sugar cane that also bears increased yields for years now, and may have it certified for commercial use within five years. Australia is also working on its own version.

Papaya

After the Ringspot Virus nearly destroyed all of Hawaii’s papaya crops, a new variety was engineered to resist the disease, and it now represents the majority of the papayas grown in the United States.

“Papaya would be unique in the sense where the industry in Hawaii is dependent on biotech,” says Kevin Richards, director of regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau. “What you have in Hawaii is a very contained, isolated agro-eco system, which is vulnerable to diseases.”

Potatoes

The first genetically modified food to be approved for cultivation in Europe in over a decade, Amflora potatoes are currently being grown in Sweden. High in starch content, the potatoes are actually meant for use in paper, glues and other commercial products rather than as food, but that doesn’t mean they won’t end up affecting the food chain. Nearby farmers worry about their rabbits, deer, and especially their bees.

Honey

Could genetically modified crops have something to do with the mysterious ailments that are killing honeybee colonies by the billions? Some researchers believe so. A zoologist in Germany found that genes used to modify rapeseed crops had transferred to bacteria living inside bees. GMOs are currently considered to be among the possible causes of Colony Collapse Disorder. And if the genes are causing changes within the bees, they’re also likely to cause changes to the honey that the bees produce.

Bananas

After banana crops in Uganda were affected by a bacterial disease that caused the plants to rot, scientists developed a genetically modified variety that could help alleviate the $500 million annual loss. The ban on GM crops was waived to make way for the GM version of Uganda’s staple food. A gene from sweet pepper was inserted into the bananas that make them resistant to the bacteria. Cultivated bananas have almost no genetic diversity, so supporters of this decision argue that introducing the GMO fruits will actually help bananas as a whole.

Zucchini Squash

Zucchini are among the foods currently on store shelves that are often genetically modified. The main threats to zucchini harvests are viruses and fungal infections, and GM zucchini eliminate those problems.

Pork

Pigs are currently being genetically modified for the possibility of producing human organs as early as 2013, but that’s not their only use. Another variety may eventually end up on our plates. A project called “Enviropig” has inserted genes from mice and E.coli bacteria into pigs to make them process their food more efficiently, potentially reducing their environmental impact. The modification allows the pigs to digest chemicals called phosphates which are present in cereal grains; these chemicals normally just pass right through a pig’s system where they can end up in waterways.

Alfalfa

Genetic modification is making its way into the sprouts on your sandwiches and salads. The GMO industry demanded that the USDA allow unrestricted planting of genetically modified alfalfa, which makes up about 7 percent of U.S. crop fields. Alfalfa is a prolific pollinator, so it can easily spread to non-GMO alfalfa. USDA chief Tom Vilsack resisted the idea at first, but in January 2011, he gave in.

Meat and Eggs

The importance of that GMO alfalfa decision? It has a huge domino effect on the entire food chain. Alfalfa is not just grown for edible sprouts, of course – it’s mainly animal feed. Livestock have been fed genetically modified grains like corn and soy since 1996, when these crops were first introduced, and adding alfalfa to the mix will substantially increase the amount of GMOs that animals like cows, chickens and pigs take in. Of course, just like all of the other effects of GMOs, how all of this will pan out for the livestock and for us is not yet clear.

And direct genetic modification of food animals is in the works, too. Aside from the previously mentioned pigs, animals that are in “laboratory stage” include cows and goats that can produce milk containing drugs like antibiotics, and chickens that produce drugs in their egg whites. Under current FDA rules, GMO meat and dairy won’t need to have special labels on store shelves, making it extremely difficult to tell what is modified and what isn’t.

Milk

Aside from the contamination that may occur when dairy livestock consume genetically modified feed, GMOs can end up in your milk in other ways, too. The United States is currently the only nation in the world that allows milk containing the genetically engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) to be sold for human consumption. Milk from cows treated with these artificial hormones has been found to contain lower nutritional value, higher pus content (yes, you read that correctly) and increased levels of the cancer-causing hormone IGF-1.

And then there are the cows that are being genetically engineered to produce human breast milk. Scientists in China have bred a herd of 300 dairy cows with milk that resembles the balance of fats and nutrients that are best for human babies. The researchers believe that this modified cow milk is a possible substitute for human milk, and could be sold on store shelves in the future.

Aspartame

How can an artificial substance be genetically modified? Aspartame may seem like an odd addition to this list, but the fact is, Monsanto makes it using genetically modified bacteria. The bacteria produce the amino acid phenylalanine, which, when combined with aspartic acid, creates the faux sweetener.

Photos:  millionsagainstmonsanto, kimberlykv, janineomg, maurice

The post 20 Genetically Modified Foods Coming to Your Plate appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnAdvertising tricks from the food world.

In this edition of Fit to Eat, we’re focusing on advertising and marketing: the good, the bad, the ugly and some gray areas in between. The very bad form award goes to one well-known seafood chain using the prospect of ocean species extinction as a marketing campaign to sell menu items; Chipotle, the burrito chain, enlists Willie Nelson to cover a Coldplay hit to highlight the company’s commitment to supporting small scale farmers; Yum! Brands, the grease factory that brings us Kentucky Fried Chicken and Taco Bell, is working state by state to make it possible for food stamp recipients to use their Supplementary Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) dollars on fast food (I can see the billboards now); Con Agra is being sued in a class action for advertising its genetically modified corn oil as “100% natural”; and Dean Foods touts that its chocolate milk is made from…milk! Imagine that, real milk, coming soon to a school lunch tray near you.

“Save the Salmon” says Legal Sea Food, but not because salmon are an important part of the food chain, or because they are a sacred food to Native Americans, or because they are amazing creatures. Nope. Save them so that Legal Sea Food can sauté them with lemon butter sauce. Same goes for trout and crab. Yeah, it’s supposed to be funny, but environmentalists aren’t laughing.

Chipotle, the only national fast food chain that sources hormone and antibiotic free meats, produced this animated video of farmers going back to the old ways of doing things with Willie Nelson covering the haunting Coldplay song “The Scientist” in the background. Cynical marketing campaign or sheer brilliance?

Ever looking for new markets, Yum! Brands is applying for inclusion in the food stamp programs in several states. On one hand, it looks like a giant government subsidy for fast food, but the company says fast food is one of the few food options available to homeless food stamp recipients and others without kitchens or the ability to prepare meals.

Some clever lawyers turned the GMO industry’s own language against it, suing Con Agra for its use of the verbiage “100% Natural” on cooking oil that is likely to be made from genetically modified plants. Zeroing in on this definition of GMOs from Monsanto, “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs,” the lawsuit contends that consumers are being misled by labels that convey that the product is a natural, wholesome product.

Aiming its new high fructose corn syrup-free chocolate milk squarely at school lunch programs nationwide, Dean Foods unleashes a marketing blitz to tout the attributes of its TruMoo chocolate milk product, among which is the selling point that it’s actually milk! Nutritionists are split on whether or not chocolate milk should be allowed in schools. What’s your take?

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate,  on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

The post Fit to Eat: News from the Food World – Marketing and Advertising Edition appeared first on EcoSalon.

The last time we wrote about Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), three big stories were in play: GM Alfalfa, GM Sugar Beets, and GM Salmon. Now, there’s more.

On January 27^th, the USDA announced its approval of the planting of GM alfalfa without restrictions. This was a reversal from what organic industry leaders thought was going to happen, but it seems that the industry had pretty much given up on getting GM Alfalfa banned outright. They were reluctantly supporting coexistence as the next best alternative. Agriculture experts say President Obama pushed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack in the direction of an approval without restrictions in order to appear more business-friendly to the biotech industry. Whatever the rumor mill, coexistence could have imposed some important restrictions, like isolation of GMO crops from non-GMO crops to prevent contamination. Yet, even that met with failure.

You might think the flowering little clover plant is nothing but a poetic prop in a Willa Cather novel, but alfalfa is a crop crucial to the organic industry because it serves as the main feed for organic dairy cows. Contamination at feed level can work its way all through the organic food chain to milk, yogurt, ice cream, cheese, sour cream, and even packaged products that contain milk solids, potentially making the USDA organic label meaningless.

Unfortunately, no matter what, contamination is likely even if precautions are taken because alfalfa is so widely planted in the U.S. and because it’s pollinated by busy bees. And it is a losing battle: Separating the crops doesn’t prevent worker bees from flying up to five miles to pollinate (and possibly contaminate non-GM alfalfa with GM material). For an organic dairy farmer’s take on the matter, read this statement from Albert Straus of Straus Family Creamery. He has been fighting the contamination of his feed sources by GMO’S ever since 2006, when he first discovered contamination in organic corn.

On the heels of the alfalfa decision, on February 4, the USDA announced it would partially deregulate GM Sugar beets.

What partial deregulation means in this case is that the beets are approved until the environmental impact statement can be completed in May 2012. GM sugar beets have already been planted in the US (and ripped out) after Federal Judge Jeffrey White ruled in December that a proper environmental report hadn’t been conducted. According to the New York Times, in this latest action, the USDA essentially overruled the judge by approving the replanting of the crop at the request of Monsanto and KWS, a German seed company.

As if that weren’t enough to be depressed by, there’s more: The FDA is poised to approve the first genetically modified animal for human consumption, GM salmon. Watch this video for a sadly entertaining take on why this is an awful idea. Many Congress people are working to stop this because neither they nor their constituents want to eat GM salmon.

The problem with these “developments” in food and crop science is that we’ll never get a full and accurate picture of the safety or health risks of GMOs as long as the developers of the technology control the information that is available.

As the salmon video points out, the research studies regarding safety are often done by the developers themselves. An op-ed in Sunday’s LA Times by scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union for Concerned Scientists details how the bio-tech industry restricts independent research into bio-tech crops by withholding seeds and ultimately chooses who does the research through heavy funding of university agriculture departments.

Non GMO activists are often attacked for being “irresponsible”, withholding progress for mankind, and generally living in the dark ages but a healthy skepticism about industry-funded research is not irresponsible. What is irresponsible is our government’s ability to approve unproven technology that could be dangerous. Until we have better assurance through independent research that GMO’s are safe for the environment, us, and will not contaminate non-GMO’S, we should oppose them on principle.

Here’s what you can do:

1. Go to Food Democracy Now and join the campaign against GMO’S. Tell Obama to overrule the USDA.

2. Give money to the Center for Food Safety’s fight to stop GMO alfalfa.

3. Sign the petition to stop GMO Salmon.

4. Learn about and support the non-GMO Project.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: Erin Collins

The post The Green Plate: Genetically Modified Outrageous appeared first on EcoSalon.