Glyphosate Found In 93% of Urine Samples

The Detox Project is a research organization bringing awareness to the public by testing for man-made chemicals in our bodies and in our food. The project gives consumers an accurate report on the levels of glyphosate in their urine.

Through this unique public testing project carried out by a laboratory at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), glyphosate was discovered in 93% of urine samples during the early phase of the testing in 2015. The urine and water testing was organized by The Detox Project and commissioned by the Organic Consumers Association.

The project has provided more urine samples for testing than any other glyphosate bio-monitoring urine study ever in America. It was supported by members of the public, who themselves paid for their urine and water samples to be analyzed for glyphosate residues by the UCSF lab.

The data released in a presentation by the UCSF lab only covers the first 131 people tested. Further data from this public bio-monitoring study, which is now completed, will be released later in 2016.

Later this year, The Detox Project will be working alongside a new, larger lab to enable the public to once again test their urine for glyphosate residues. The Detox Project is also researching whether or not an organic diet has an effect on the level of man-made chemicals in our bodies. They’re not just testing for glyphosates either, they are also testing for 150+ man-made chemicals.

The Results

glyphosate was discovered in 93% of urine samples

Glyphosate was found in 93% of the 131 urine samples tested at an average level of 3.096 parts per billion (PPB). Children had the highest levels with an average of 3.586 PPB.

The regions with the highest levels were the West and the Midwest with an average of 3.053 PPB and 3.050 PPB respectively.

Glyphosate residues were not observed in any tap water samples during the early phase of the project, most likely due to phosphorus removal during water treatment.

The Method

Glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine ) is directly analyzed using liquid chromatography- tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Water and urine samples are prepared for analysis by solid phase extraction using an ion exchange column. Extracted samples are injected to the LC-MS/MS and the analyte is separated using an Obelisc N column (SIELC Technologies, Prospect Heights, IL) through isocratic elution. Ionization of glyphosate is achieved using an electrospray ionization source operated in negative polarity. The analyte is detected by multiple reaction monitoring using a 13C-labelled glyphosate as the internal standard. Quantification of the analyte is done by isotope dilution method using an eight-point calibration curve.

The assay has a limit of quantification of 0.5 ng/mL. The intra- and inter-day precision observed are 6-15% in concentrations that range 0.5-80 ng/mL. Recoveries for glyphosate range 70-80% at concentrations within the assay’s linear dynamic range.

Glyphosate and Health Concerns

Visit: http://www.ghostfight3r.deviantart.com and www.designville.host22.com for more design resources

Glyphosate-containing herbicides are sold under trademarks including Monsanto’s “Roundup”. Glyphosate was labeled a “probable human carcinogen” by the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC in 2015. The European Union is currently putting restrictions on the use of glyphosate due to health concerns.

Glyphosate has never been studied at the level of exposure that we in the U.S. are currently being subjected to (under 3 mg/kg body weight/day). Industry-funded science many years ago suggested that lower exposure is likely safe, but that more exposure could prove to be dangerous. Modern independent science has discovered that many toxic chemicals can have major effects on our endocrine system, sometimes at very low doses. Interestingly enough, due to the nature of endocrine disrupters, there’s often a “sweet spot”, where less or more exposure would be more damaging to health. These chemicals are known as hormone disruptors, or endocrine disruptors.

For more on the endocrine system check out Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones.

A study from March 2015 stated that the health cost to the European Union of only a few of these endocrine disrupting chemicals is over EUR 150 Billion per year. The same report also said that lower IQs, adult obesity, and potentially 5% or more of autism cases may be linked to exposure to endocrine disruptors like glyphosate.

“With increasing evidence from laboratory studies showing that glyphosate-based herbicides can result in a wide range of chronic illnesses through multiple mechanisms, it has become imperative to ascertain the levels of glyphosate in food and in as large a section of the human population as possible. Thus, the information gathered by the glyphosate public testing service being offered by The Detox Project is most timely and will provide invaluable information for the consumer and scientists like myself evaluating the toxicity of real world levels of exposure to this most widely used pesticide.”

These results show that both the U.S. regulators have let down consumers in America. Independent science shows that glyphosate may be a hormone hacker at these real-life exposure levels found in the food products. The safe level of glyphosate ingestion is simply unknown despite what the EPA and Monsanto would have everyone believe.” – Henry Rowlands, Director, The Detox Project

If consumers had any doubt about the extent to which they are being poisoned by Monsanto’s Roundup, these tests results should put those doubts to rest,” – Ronnie Cummins, International Director of Organic Consumers Association 

It’s interesting to note that the testing is on a volunteer bases, and some speculate that people getting tested are more likely than the general public to purchase organic foods and avoid GMOs.

How to Avoid and Detox Endocrine Disruptors

The most common endocrine disruptors we are likely to have in our bodies include Bisphenol–A, AKA BPAs, Phthalates (added to plastics to make them softer and last longer), Parabens, PBDE’s (found in flame retardants) PCB’s, Dioxin: (an unintentional by-product of many industrial processes),  pesticides and herbicides, and heavy metals. It’s a scary list, and there’s obviously many more chemicals we haven’t heard about yet.

The good news is that studies have shown that fresh, raw, organic vegetables detox the body of all of these toxins. It’s becoming more and more imperative that we grow our own food and buy unpackaged, unprocessed food to prepare at home. Get gardening and get detoxing if you’re not already. See the recommended reading list below for more on this.

Conclusion

If you’re ready to send in a sample, unfortunately, the project was put on hold. Due to the enormous interest, they had to temporarily stop the urine and water testing program until they are working with a much larger lab, which is supposed to begin in “summer, 2016.” You can sign up if you’re interested at The Detox Project here.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Biotech Victory – WHO Reverses Glyphosate Report

Less than a year ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) lit a fire under the glyphosate controversy when it released the news that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.

Last year’s report, was made by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), WHO’s cancer agency. The conclusion was reached through consideration of publicly available studies.

Now, a joint UN and WHO panel has announced their finding that glyphosate is probably not carcinogenic. What’s worse is that WHO officials are claiming there is no contradiction in their new conclusion, that the first conclusion was identifying a potential hazard while the second was quantifying the associated risk. Huh? Are you wondering if there is another agenda here?

It’s easy enough to follow the money. Panel members have ties to Monsanto and big money, seven figure money, has changed hands.

On the same day as the UN/WHO report made the news, The New York Times reported that a new analysis of GM crops finds that they are safe to eat and do not harm the environment. This conclusion was reached through the review of more than 1,000 studies, the testimony of 80 witnesses, and the analysis of comments from the public.

Though the committee says many of the animal feeding studies were too small to provide firm conclusions, they still deemed these crops safe. Those following this debate know that animal studies have shown they are dangerous, causing reproductive damage, organ damage, and cancers, but only in long term studies. It is the long-term studies that the biotech firms have avoided as they complete one short-term study after another to “prove” the safety of their products.

Both of these reports came out days before the European Union is scheduled to vote on relicensing glyphosate, a multi-billion dollar decision for the biotech industry.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


UK Upholds Radical New Tobacco Laws

In 2014, the UK passed a new law aimed at drastically reducing tobacco’s marketing appeal. The law, of course, was challenged by four of the world’s largest tobacco companies, British American Tobacco, Imperial Tobacco, Japan Tobacco International, and Philip Morris International. The High Court dismissed all grounds of their case.

Uniform Packaging for Cigarettes

The new law calls for uniform packaging for cigarettes. All cigarette packages will be a uniform color, a drab olive green. The package must include pictures that are health warnings, which must cover 65% of the front and back. Additional warnings are required on the top. No promotional statements (such as “free of additives”) will be allowed. The brand name of each company will be the only distinguishing factor, but the name will be presented in a uniform font. Hand rolled tobacco packages will be the same color.

The new regulations will not allow companies to promote their products. The marketing power of trademarks and promotional statements will be eliminated.

The new law and separate EU laws are all aimed at smoking reduction. These laws include the elimination of 10 cigarette packs; menthol cigarettes and skinny cigarettes will be banned by 2020. New rules will regulate e-cigarettes and herbal products as well.

Previous Smoking Regulation Laws in the EU

At this time, 17 European countries have adopted smoke-free laws regulating public smoking. Ireland, Greece, Malta, Bulgaria, Spain, Hungary, and the UK have instituted a complete ban on smoking in enclosed public places, in workplaces, and on public transport. Limited exceptions are allowed.

The 2001 EU directive on tobacco products banned terms like “mild,” “low tar,” and “light, and required packaging to include 2 warnings. The first compulsory warning is either “tobacco kills” or “tobacco can seriously harm you and others around you”. The second can be chosen from a list of 14 choices. One example is “smoking causes fatal lung cancer”. The directive also set maximum limits for nicotine, tar, and carbon monoxide in cigarettes and banned snus (an oral tobacco product that is still legal in Sweden).

Televised tobacco advertising and tobacco sponsorship were prohibited in 1989. In 2003, the Directive on Tobacco Advertising banned cross-border advertising of tobacco products in printed media, radio, and online services and prohibited sponsorship of cross-border events.

Current Statistics Regarding Smoking in the U.S.

The CDC states that smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States with 1 in 5 deaths (480,000 deaths per year) attributed to the practice. Their latest statistics for the year 2014 report 16.8% of American adults (18 or older) were current smokers. That’s 40 million smokers. This percentage is down from 20.9% in 2005.

The percentage of the population who smoke does vary from state to state and region to region as well as age, gender, education, income, disability, and sexual orientation.

The highest percentage of adult smokers live in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Guam (25.3% – 29.2%); the lowest live in Utah and California (9.7% < 13.6%).

Regions Ranked According to the Percentage of Residents Who Smoke:

  • West – 13.1%
  • Northeast – 15.3%
  • South – 17.2%
  • Midwest – 20.7%

Percentage of the Population Who Smoke According to Age:

  • 18–24 – 16.7%
  • 25–44 – 20.0%
  • 45–64 -18.0%
  • 65 and older – 8.5%

Other Interesting Stats

Statistics showed higher use among men (18.8%) than women (14.8%).

Americans below the poverty level were more likely to smoke (26.3%) than those at or above the poverty level (15.2%).

Americans with a graduate degree ranked the lowest (5.4%). It is interesting to note that those who obtained a GED were the most likely to be smokers (43%), nearly twice as likely than those who never completed high school (22.9%) and fully twice as likely as those with a high school diploma (21.7%).

Lesbian/gay/bisexual adults were more likely to be smokers (23.9%) than straight adults (26.6%).

Native American and Alaskan Native Americans ranked the highest (29.2%) while non-Hispanic Asian Americans ranked the lowest (9.5%).

Adults with limitations/disabilities were more likely to smoke (21.9%) than adults without limitations or disabilities (16.1%).

Conclusion

It will be interesting to see how the new laws affect sales in the UK and EU and whether the U.S. would ever consider a similar action. Considering the power of the corporate world in the U.S. economy and politics, it is unlikely.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:


Late Onset ADHD – Young Adults Are Developing ADHD, Shows New Study

ADHD, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, is making the news again. No it is not another plea to stop medicating children, and it’s not another argument about how normal children can’t or shouldn’t be expected to sit still in a classroom. The current news is that young adults with no prior history of ADHD are now being diagnosed with the disorder.

ADHD Diagnostic Criteria

The following is the current CDC diagnostic criteria for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The CDC uses the DSM V (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V – the diagnostic manual for mental health professionals). ADHD diagnosed as follows:

Inattention: Six or more symptoms of inattention for children up to age 16, or five or more for adolescents 17 and older and adults; symptoms of inattention have been present for at least 6 months, and they are inappropriate for developmental level:

  • Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, at work, or with other activities.
  • Often has trouble holding attention on tasks or play activities.
  • Often does not seem to listen when spoken to directly.
  • Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (e.g., loses focus, side-tracked).
  • Often has trouble organizing tasks and activities.
  • Often avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to do tasks that require mental effort over a long period of time (such as schoolwork or homework).
  • Often loses things necessary for tasks and activities (e.g. school materials, pencils, books, tools, wallets, keys, paperwork, eyeglasses, mobile telephones).
  • Is often easily distracted.
  • Is often forgetful in daily activities.

Hyperactivity and Impulsivity: Six or more symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity for children up to age 16, or five or more for adolescents 17 and older and adults; symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity have been present for at least 6 months to an extent that is disruptive and inappropriate for the person’s developmental level:

  • Often fidgets with or taps hands or feet, or squirms in seat.
  • Often leaves seat in situations when remaining seated is expected.
  • Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is not appropriate (adolescents or adults may be limited to feeling restless).
  • Often unable to play or take part in leisure activities quietly.
  • Is often “on the go” acting as if “driven by a motor”.
  • Often talks excessively.
  • Often blurts out an answer before a question has been completed.
  • Often has trouble waiting his/her turn.
  • Often interrupts or intrudes on others (e.g., butts into conversations or games).

In addition, the following conditions must be met

  • Several inattentive or hyperactive-impulsive symptoms were present before age 12 years.
  • Several symptoms are present in two or more setting, (e.g., at home, school or work; with friends or relatives; in other activities).
  • There is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with, or reduce the quality of, social, school, or work functioning.
  • The symptoms do not happen only during the course of schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder. The symptoms are not better explained by another mental disorder (e.g. Mood Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Dissociative Disorder, or a Personality Disorder).”

Late Onset ADHD

The late onset ADHD was found through a longitudinal twin study of 2232 children born in England and Wales from January 1, 1994 to December 4, 1995. Researchers found the following, “Among 166 individuals with adult ADHD, 112 (67.5%) did not meet criteria for ADHD at any assessment in childhood.”

The actual cause of ADHD is officially unknown. If we stop being distracted by the myths associated with this disorder (that this it doesn’t exist, that it is over diagnosed, etc.) and realize the significance of this new finding, we might see ADHD for what it is – a horrific and alarming result of our toxic lifestyle.

ADHD is a neurobehavioral disorder associated with both structural and chemical alterations in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. In other words, ADHD is a set of symptoms exhibited due to damage to the brain. Currently, 11% of American children are diagnosed with this disorder.

ADHD, autism, chronic autoimmune diseases, and a host of other diseases continue to rise along with the recommended number of vaccines and the daily chemical exposure we all experience through our environment and through our food. It’s time we wake up, use our common sense, and stop poisoning our children and young adults.

Related Reading:
Sources:


Mumps Outbreak at Harvard University Affecting Vaccinated Students

As of May 12th, 59 Harvard students have been diagnosed with the mumps. The outbreak began in February. Numbers continue to rise despite the fact that the MMR vaccine (a live attenuated combination vaccine that includes weakened measles, mumps, and rubella viruses) is required for all students.

In March, the local public health department reported that all of the students who had contracted the mumps had received their MMR vaccinations – 2 MMR vaccines.

On their website the CDC states, “The measles vaccine is very effective. One dose of measles vaccine is about 93% effective at preventing measles if exposed to the virus and two doses are about 97% effective.” Although this outbreak appears to be a clear case of vaccine failure, students are now being advised to get a booster shot.

On their site, the CDC also continues to claim viral shedding of live virus does not occur with the MMR shot. Several studies have found otherwise. It does seem counterintuitive to try and battle this outbreak by giving booster shots. First, the vaccine failed. Second, the recipient’s immune system would receive a third assault along with exposure to all of the known risks. Third, vaccine shedding may cause infection.

Outbreaks of mumps have been occurring on both high school and college campuses among the vaccinated for years. In 2006, many college campuses experienced outbreaks with more than 6,500 reported cases.

Here are the annual numbers of confirmed mumps cases as reported by the CDC from 2010 until now.

  • 2010 – 2,612
  • 2011 – 370
  • 2012 – 229
  • 2013 – 584
  • 2014 – 1,223
  • 2015 – 1,057

The CDC’s preliminary case count for 2016 as of April 29 is 727.

Mumps is a virus that is spread through saliva and mucous. Those infected are believed to be contagious before they become symptomatic and up to five days after initial symptoms occur. Coughing, sneezing, talking, sharing cups or eating utensils, and touching surfaces that have become contaminated will spread the disease.

While mumps is generally a mild disease, it can cause complications including:

  • encephalitis – inflammation of the brain
  • meningitis – inflammation of the tissue covering the brain and the spinal cord
  • mastitis – inflammation of breast tissue in post-pubescent females
  • oophoritis – inflammation of the ovaries in post-pubescent females
  • orchitis – inflammation of the testicles in post-pubescent males
  • deafness

All of these complications and more are listed as possible side effects of the MMR vaccine on the package insert.

In regards to the current outbreak, once again, there is no explanation as to why the MMR is not providing protection from the virus. Instead, students will be put at risk for vaccine injury with a third dose of an ineffective vaccine.

Related Reading:
Sources:


John Oliver on Studies, Our Faith in Science, and Vaccine Skepticism

John Oliver and I don’t agree on everything, like vaccines and about ten other things that immediately come to mind, but I like his show. I think it makes a huge, positive impact in the world. This week’s episode was no exception as John explained the major problems with scientific studies and summed them up by saying, “There is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science.”

I don’t give any credence to scientific studies myself unless I’ve had time to read and understand them, which can be surprisingly difficult and time-consuming. But reading the actual study is the first essential step because the version you hear from mainstream media may not even resemble the original study or its findings.

Take the chocolate study John speaks of in this episode, for instance.

This small study compared the effects of high versus low flavonoid chocolate consumption during pregnancy. The study concluded that there was  no significant difference in the rate of preeclampsia between the two groups. There was nothing interesting about this conclusion, or the study for that matter. But to gain attention, the press release written for the study was titled, “The Benefits of Chocolate During Pregnancy.”

Mainstream media further skewed the message as they reported, “Turns out, if you’re pregnant, eating 30 grams a day of chocolate, that’s about 2/3 of a chocolate bar, not the whole chocolate bar, could improve blood flow to the placenta and benefit the growth and development of your baby, especially in women at risk for preeclampsia or high blood pressure.”

This is a time when the words, “A new study shows…” hold little to no meaning.

This is not at all what the study was about or what it concluded. The news report was pure misinformation the viewer was supposed to believe because it was “science.” And of course, as is usually the case, the miss-information was skewed to benefit advertisers and other interest groups who control the media.

Years ago a headline like that may have caught my attention, but now I would see it for what it is – a vague fluff piece, mainstream junk media.

Today, if I was interested in the subject, I’d track down the original study even though I might have to pay for it and I would read several other studies about the subject as well. I would look for answers like whether or not the study sample was large enough, whether proper scientific standards were met, such as a double blind or a control group. I would never accept media’s version, any more than I would accept the conclusion of a poorly structured or executed study.

Unfortunately, John Oliver is himself a victim of the media’s distortion. His statement that science has proven vaccines do not cause autism shows that he is not aware that the pharmaceutical companies conducted those studies and that he, himself, has not looked into the actual research. On the other hand, he shouldn’t have to. No one has the time to research everything, not the right way. This is what makes people like Paul Offit so disturbing. He has actually done the research. He knows better, and he chooses money over truth and integrity.

We live in an interesting time. We are seeing a huge shift in mainstream’s awareness of the risks with vaccines, antibacterial soaps, prescription drugs, genetically modified foods, refined foods, pesticides, herbicides, WIFI, cellular, and the chemicals in our home and bath products. This is a time when the words, “A new study shows…” hold little to no meaning.

Recommended Reading:

 



Ugly Fruit & Veggies May Pack Extra Nutrients – Get to Know Them!

(Dr. Mercola) A new initiative has been spawned in the U.S., patterned after a similar effort in France focused on marketing unlovely produce such as “the grotesque apple and the ridiculous potato.”

The premise is built on the realization that just because these foods may have an inferior exterior in comparison with the beautiful darlings on display in fruit baskets, it doesn’t mean they’re not edible and nutritious.

Especially in wealthy countries like the U.S., it’s only the most perfect specimens that grace produce shelves — the crop version of the Rockettes, all having the same shape, uniform skin and general appeal.

For the Love of Ugly

One of the biggest flaws in society is that perfection is practically deified. One thing this ideal has led to is the wholesale waste of fresh, misfit produce that has been deemed unmarketable.

The downside of having plenty is that people feel they have room to be discriminating.

Anything “flawed” needs to go away, so it does — into the garbage heap. Unfortunately, the amount of pitched fruits and vegetables has been estimated at around one-third of what is produced — around 133 billion pounds of food per year.

The sad fact is we’re all to blame. Whether we’re consumers who allow good food to deteriorate in little plastic coffins in our refrigerators, or obsessive “safety first” freaks who actually believe they should purge anything past its so-called “sell-by” date, there aren’t many of us who aren’t guilty of this type of squander.

Growers sorting bumper crops of fruits and vegetables for the marketplace regularly toss produce that isn’t necessarily the best looking, or they simply plow it under.

Food is the Largest Material in U.S. Landfills

Fresh foods are perishable, obviously, but rather than finding someone close by who needs it, the easiest course is to cart it to the nearest landfill. In fact, these once viable foods are what take up the most space in landfills. According to one PBS article:

“Now food is the largest material in our landfills. Of all the things that are in our dumps, the biggest portion is food. And when it rots in a landfill, it emits methane, which is a very potent greenhouse gas, 30 or 100 times more potent than carbon dioxide.”1

A cauliflower, for instance, might have yellow patches; it might just be considered too large. Although it’s crispy, tasty — everything a cauliflower is supposed to be — these are routinely rejected. Perfectly fine peaches that aren’t flawless perfection might end up as cattle feed.

There are multiple points at which waste is generated in a growing operation. One of the problems farmers have is that when prices fluctuate between planting and harvest to the degree that taking it to market isn’t even worth it, the easiest course is the landfill. Some produce goes bad in transport or in processing.

A Natural Resources Defense Council report estimated that as much as 30 percent of some farmers’ crops never make it to market. Another problem with this is that those crops were watered needlessly, and most are well aware of the water shortage in the western U.S.

The Land of Misfit Produce Has Been Found to Be Healthier

Some researchers believe fruits and vegetables that are misshapen, bearing nicks or what have you, may actually have higher antioxidant content. One orchard owner in Virginia suggested that stress may even help create super fruit.

She conducted an off-grid test to compare the nutritional value of both marred and unmarred Parma apples from her orchard, and reported that the ones with blemishes were sweeter by 2 percent to 5 percent — a bonus for her since the sweetest apples produce the tastiest cider.

It’s already well known that organic food is healthier. One reason is because of whatsn’t there — it isn’t loaded down with pesticide residues and other toxins. A 2012 study2 revealed that organic produce contains as much as 40 percent more antioxidants than conventionally grown varieties.

Among those antioxidants are innumerable elements such as carotenoids, flavonoids, phenolic acids and many other health-promoting nutrients. Those may or may not be present in spite of weather and pests, but because of them.

This truly may be a case where what doesn’t kill (organic fruits and vegetables) makes them stronger!

Interestingly, organic produce isn’t just safer to eat, it contains more of what we eat food for — to ingest the vitamins and minerals we need to maintain health; to literallymake food our medicine and medicine our food, as Hippocrates advised.

The ugli fruit gets a gold star in this regard. It has thick, yellow-green skin so loose, lumpy and leathery that anyone who didn’t know better might pass it by.

But studies show it contains 11 antioxidant, free-radical-scavenging and iron-reducing compounds and flavonoids, is anti-inflammatory, antiviral, anti-allergic, and significantly reduced smoke-induced carcinogens.

Its compounds may help protect against viral infections, allergies, and fungal conditions, and its peel contains coumarin, which may protect against tumorous cancers.3

Don’t Pitch It — Redirect It

Countless organizations are dedicated to feeding the hungry. Shelters, food banks and soup kitchens are there for this purpose. Some have devised innovative ways to convince restaurant and grocery store owners to funnel rejected produce, which very often is perfectly fine, to such places rather than to the landfill.

One program is the EPA’s Food Recovery Challenge,4 dedicated to reducing the amount of food wasted in the U.S. (possibly inspired by the European Union, which declared 2014 as the Year Against Food Waste5).

In fact, a Harvard-based conference titled, “Reduce & Recover: Save Food For People,”6 “prioritizes actions people can take to reduce and recover wasted food.”

Another project called Imperfect Produce7 was designed to offer not-so-perfect plant-based foods for a drastically discounted price, working with Whole Foods and other retailers.

The company delivers “wonky”-looking fruits and veggies from several Southern California locations to homes and offices. The goal is to expand to other areas across the U.S. Imperfect Produce was designed after a French endeavor called Inglorious produce, its goal to market “the grotesque apple, and the ridiculous potato.”

Unfortunately, as one farmer related, getting foods destined for the rubbish heap into the hands of someone who’ll eat it is not free:

“There’s got to be an economic incentive to move more of this into an avenue that food banks could take advantage of. It’s a lot easier and cheaper just to basically throw it away.”8

Farmers in seven states get tax credits for donating produce, but food banks have been lobbying for larger deductions.

It’s What’s on the Inside That Counts

Restaurants and grocery stores on the other end of the operation perpetrate a staggering amount of waste themselves, but a few, including Safeway and Giant Eagle, have jumped on board to find a home for cosmetically challenged, plant-based foods.

An example of how Raley’s western-based grocery chain tackled the dilemma of wasted food is fairly straightforward: They opted to start selling produce that doesn’t necessarily appear flawless, and at a 25 percent or greater discount.

The “Real Good” program — the first of its kind in the U.S. — focuses on fruits and vegetables described as “scarred (or) aesthetically challenged,” but with imperfections so insignificant consumers often can’t tell why it was ever considered a reject.

“The grocer said qualifying produce is uniquely shaped, sized or colored, but otherwise the same in flavor and quality as standard produce offerings. Among the “Real Good” offerings are plums, peppers and pears that will be offered at prices 25 percent to 30 percent lower than flawlessly shaped, uniformly colored produce.”9

Heirloom Fruits and Vegetables — Our Last, Best Hope

Many people who grow their “real food” do so for more reasons than the enjoyment of getting dirt under their fingernails. In many cases it’s because they know using seeds that are the “real thing” — not hybrids crossed from two or more varieties, but open-pollinated and sometimes saved from actual produce — may have advantages many have never considered.

Why would anybody go to the trouble of soaking, scraping, drying and carefully preserving the seeds from their garden produce, or tracking down heirloom seed varieties to grow in their gardens, when they can purchase all the seeds they want down the street for just a few dollars? Turns out there are many motivations:

  • Heirloom varieties aren’t laced with pesticides and other harmful chemicals, such as GMOs.
  • Heirloom foods taste better. Many people today have no idea what some foods are supposed to even taste like, because beauty has replaced flavor in the marketplace. But the originally created model of foods like delicious, meaty tomatoes and nutty, buttery squash exist only from seeds saved, protected, and sometimes handed down through several generations.
  • Heirloom vegetables and fruits often contain superior nutrition. While the bottom line is profit, and profit is maintained by offering more and more of the prettiest peaches, carrots and lettuce, growers have gotten into the habit of planting for a continual bumper crop of higher yields. But it turns out that the practice has backfired; the highest nutrients are often found to be significantly higher in those older varieties.10
  • Heirloom seeds are open-pollinated, meaning you can save and plant the seeds from year to year. They produce plants with offerings that are true to type, which is more often than not, not the case with hybrids.
  • Heirlooms produce less-uniform crops, so they ripen at different times. While large farming operations like everything to reach maturity at the same time so they can pick everything all at once, home gardeners get the advantage of harvesting produce as they need it.

Heirloom seeds are also less expensive — even free. It just stands to reason that if you save your seeds from year to year, you’ll pay literally nothing, other than your time. And the result will be just as mouth-wateringly delicious as last year.

Scientific ‘Improvement’ Not What the Doctor Ordered

Mother Earth News reported:

“A lot of the breeding programs for modern hybrids have sacrificed taste and nutrition,” says George DeVault, executive director of Seed Savers Exchange, the leading nonprofit organization dedicated to saving and sharing heirloom and other rare seeds. “The standard Florida tomato is a good example. Instead of old-time juicy tangy tomatoes, it tastes like cardboard.

It was bred to be picked green and gas-ripened because that’s what was needed for commercial growing and shipping.”11

A perfect example of what happens when something like an apple is scientifically targeted for genetic perfection is the Red Delicious apple. These delectable apples with unique coloring and crisp, juicy flavor were America’s favorite for nearly 75 years — until selective breeding rendered them not only unpopular but also virtually inedible.

What happened? Well, when a grower noticed a single branch on a Red Delicious tree produced red apples sooner than the rest, an all-out campaign began among orchard owners to “out-breed” their competitors. The hope was that grafting branches from the source tree might produce ever-more-beautiful apples. What they got instead was a mealy, tasteless mush no one wanted to eat, even though the outside looked gorgeous.

As the old saying goes, beauty is only skin deep. Other fruits and vegetables, unfortunately, have been similarly “messed with,” especially in this age of growers and grocers counting heavily on produce appearing as attractive when it’s unloaded as when it’s picked.

Saving Food in Order to Save People Starts with Caring

It’s not just to keep available food from being wasted. The ultimate goal should be to feed people who are hungry. According to Paul Ash from the California Association of Food Banks:

“Fifty million Americans don’t know where their next meal is coming from. We, meanwhile, are wasting this — all this food. If we cut our food waste even by a third, there would be enough food for all those people who don’t know where their next meal is coming from to be fully fed.”12

The question begs to be asked: With all the hunger in the world — much of it in our own communities–aren’t there more ways this obscene waste can be redirected to do some good?

Related Reading: