There are very few packaged, process foods that I will eat. I’m not one to frequent the “health food” section where all the snack foods without HFCS are shelved. You’ll find me in the produce section. That’s after I’ve been to the farmer’s market and foraged, of course.

I used to love a good “nutrition” bar, though. I remember when I thought Power Bars were healthy. Then I went through a Cliff Bar phase for a couple of years. It took a while (baby steps), but I eventually realized that prepared foods made by companies did not make me feel good. Learning about health and wellness taught me why they aren’t good for us; the main reason is they’re loaded with sugar!

Of all the bars I’ve known, I couldn’t think of one that I would consider “healthy.” Healthier, as in far healthier than your conventional energy bars maybe, but not actually “healthy.” Not until now.

Josh Eichel emailed me and asked me to check out his new energy bars. I had just finished doing squats, and I was hungry for something fast and easy. Josh couldn’t teleport me one of his energy bars, and he used way too many exclamation points in his email (you know how those fitness dudes are, right?), but I was interested in food bars at that moment because I felt a twinge of nostalgia for the old days when I would do a heavy set of weight lifting followed by 5 or  6 energy bars.

Although I said yes, I was sure I was going to see the ingredient list and take a pass. I was wrong.

Josh, currently a student at Northeastern University in Boston, started his business, All In Nutrition, in April 2015. Like me, Josh wasn’t pleased with the unhealthy products sold as nutrition bars and energy bars. He wanted an energy bar that wasn’t sugar-laden junk food. Instead of doing the sensible thing (stop eating them or just make your own) he started his business. Take a look at the ingredients:

Wicked Dark Chocolate Cayenne Energy Bars

• GMO-Free, Grass Fed Whey Protein from New Zealand
• Sunflower Seed Butter
• Organic Dates
• Organic Cacao Chocolate Chips, Organic Cacao Nibs
• Organic Cocoa
• Gluten-Free Whey Protein Crisps
• Sunflower Seeds
• Coffee
• Green Tea
• Chile Powder and Cayenne Pepper
• Binding agents are Organic Vegetable Glycerin and GMO-Free Prebiotic Fiber

Wicked Maple Energy Bars

• Vermont Maple
• GMO-Free, Grass Fed Whey Protein from New Zealand
• Organic Cashew Butter
• Organic Dates
• Gluten Free Whey Protein Crisps
• Almonds
• Three seed blend of Chia seeds, Flax seeds, and Pumpkin seeds
• Goji Berries
• Coffee
• Green Tea
• Chlorella
• Spirulina
• Stevia
• Binding agents are Organic Vegetable Glycerin and GMO-Free Prebiotic Fiber

The ingredients list is pretty impressive. I asked for a sample and received two bars a few days later. After I ate them,  I was sad. I was sad because he didn’t send me more than two.

Are these Maple and Chocolate Wicked Energy Bars Good For You?

Many people view energy bars as a nutritious meal replacement. For a health nut like me who lives off of salads, makes super healthy smoothies for desert, soaks and sprouts nuts, and doesn’t generally eat chocolate unless it’s raw, these bars are a treat. In fact, they’re a well-deserved treat after a good workout routine, but they aren’t a replacement for a healthy meal. As store bought energy bars go, it doesn’t get much better, but I do have a couple of nitpicks.

Cooking chia and flax eliminates health benefits. Ideally, the seeds and nuts should be sprouted, most or all ingredients should be raw, and though stevia is doing much of the sweetening, the dates and maple syrup do contain too much sugar for anyone who is battling a health issue.

On the other hand, the whey protein in Wicked Energy Bars is the best whey protein I know of, all of the ingredients are fantastic, the taste of both bars is really very good, and most importantly, my body felt good eating one after a workout.

I like them so much, I am adding them to Green Lifestyle Market. We’ll either sell them or I’ll eat them. Either one is fine with me.

Europe has become a battleground between environmental groups and big biotech companies. A French farmer won a case against Monsanto after suffering neurological problems due to inhaling their weedkiller, Lasso. By now, everyone has seen the study from the World Health Organization’s cancer agency calling glyphosate, the darling of Monsanto’s herbicides, probably carcinogenic. Instances like these and many others have left some European Nations wary of these chemicals, as evidence of their toxicity to humans is on the rise.

The Votes Are…Not In

And now we come to a crossroads. The European license for glyphosate is scheduled to expire on June 30. Previous meetings of nations of the European Union to renew the license for a 15-year span have ended in stalemates, as countries have refused to support that renewal in the face of growing scientific unrest and public opposition. The latest meeting took place Monday, with the executive body of the European Union, the European Commission (which is not affiliated with any specific country), proposing a 12- to 18-month extension for more scientific study. Malta was the only voice speaking against the extension, but the lack of votes from Germany, France, Italy, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Luxembourg kept the extension from being adopted.

The Results Are…Likely To Go One of Two Ways

So what happens now, with the glyphosate license expiring in less than a month? Option one would be an executive decision by the European Commission ignoring the lack of agreement from EU Nations and reauthorizing glyphosate. While possible, this scenario flies in the face of the Commission’s support of the democratic process that led to last year’s law allowing countries to make their own decisions regarding genetically modified crops. The leader of the Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, has publicly proclaimed his unwillingness to act against the interests of the majority view. The proposal of an extension did receive support from many countries, though, and Monsanto could see losses of potentially up to $5 billion dollars, which could result in some serious corporate pressure on the Commission.

What’s behind door number two? The simple option: leave it be. If a new agreement is not in place by the 30th of June, the license  is expired and all glyphosate products need to be gone from European Union shelves in six months. Is this more likely to happen if there are only eight votes either blocking or missing in keeping glyphosate from the shiny new license it desires? It seems unlikely until you consider some of the countries that abstained: Germany, France, and Italy, aka, three of the most powerful countries in the EU. The more you look at it, the more prudent this option becomes, really. Glyphosate has been labeled as probably cancer-causing. A product with issues (dangerous malfunctions, allergens or food contamination) would be pulled the shelves immediately. Why is glyphosate any different?

The Whole World Should be Watching

Europe has been on the forefront of recent biotech regulations in agriculture, and the decision, in this case, will resonate throughout the world. Supporters of a renewed license have pointed to the fear and confusion this will cause with consumers, which consumers would be well within their rights to feel. A probable cancer-causing chemical that has previously been sprayed with wild abandon is pulled off of shelves until a scientific consensus can be reached. What exactly is there to fear again? The knowledge that safety takes a backseat to profits, perhaps.

Related Reading:

• How To Avoid GMOs
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children
• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Celebrities Against GMOs

Sources

• Malta Alone in Voting Against Glyphosate, But Abstentions Block EU Proposal – timesofmalta.com
• UPDATE 4-EU Countries Refuse to Back New Licence For Glyphosate Weed-Killer – cnbc.com
• EU Nations Refuse to Back New License for Glyphosate Weed-Killer – reuters.com

While fresh, organic, whole foods are the ideal, few of us have the time or dedication to make everything from scratch. Though many die-hard foodies make their own condiments, who makes their own olive oil?

Recently a quest for gluten-free balsamic vinegar led to the discovery of Vitacost, an online grocery that carries most, if not all, of the packaged pantry items we would ever need. Their costs were a complete surprise. While a few things were a bit higher, others were lower. Groceries are delivered to your door. There are no travel costs. No taxes. And what makes it truly affordable, no shipping charge for orders over $49.00 (or $25.00 for selected products).

Soon after discovering Vitacost, I noticed advertising for a similar company, Thrive Market. Both are vocal about competing with Whole Foods. It was time to do a serious cost and website comparison to learn a little more about these companies.

Vitacost

Vitacost started their business in 1994 as an online source for third party vitamins and supplements. In 1999, the company began carrying proprietary brands. Over the years, it expanded into personal care products, sports and fitness diet supplies, pet supplies, green cleaning supplies, and “shelf-stable” natural and organic food. Vitacost was purchased by Kroger in 2014. The company now carries more than 45,000 items.

Thrive Market

Thrive Market is new in the game, having launched in September of 2014. Thrive is growing in leaps and bounds, though their selection is sparse compared to Vitacost and they require a $60.00 annual membership fee. The company now reports that they have acquired more than 200,000 members. They also claim to be carbon neutral and to be a company with a conscience that gives away memberships to those who cannot afford them. The company is working hard to make healthy foods (organic and non-GMO foods) accessible to everyone.

Website Comparison

Vitacost is hands down the winner when it comes to website design and user-friendly features. While Thrive has incorporated many of the same search features, they don’t have all as many categories so narrowing search parameters isn’t nearly as precise.

A search in Vitacost for olive oil reveals 172 hits in food and beverages. On the side of the screen, the user can limit choices by checking one or more of the 24 specialty choices such as GMO-free, gluten-free, organic, sugar-free, kosher, vegan, BPA-free, etc. Further limitations can be made by choosing brands, price range, form (like chips or liquid), servings, flavor, ratings, featured products, or price range.

The same search on Thrive Market results in 19 hits in the food category. The search can be further narrowed by the following categories: form, manufacturers, certifications and awards (certified gluten-free, kosher, non-GMO, etc.) environmental and social (categories like family-owned business, made in the USA, women-owned business, recyclable), health and ingredients (sugar free, salt free, pesticide free, etc.), and lifestyle (their broad categories like gluten free, paleo, vegan, etc.)

Where Vitacost’s site really shines is how it allows shoppers to save and organize favorite items. Shoppers can even create separate folders. For instance, you can create a folder for canned goods, one for baking items, one for cookies, one for pasta, etc. When you return to the site you can open a folder and check off items you wish to purchase rather than searching through the site. You can also reorder from a previous order (you can even modify it) and you can set up and schedule automatic re-orders for the items you know you are going to purchase regularly.

Amazon

Although prices were competitive on some items, others were ridiculously high. However, Amazon may remain the go-to spot for large bulk items like 25lb bags of rice or cases of canned goods.

Prices are accurate as of 5/30/2016.

It is clear that both Vitacost and Thrive Market are viable alternatives to shopping at Whole Foods even before taxes, travel costs, and time are considered. For these who don’t live near a store that carries these items, online shopping may be the only means to purchase natural and organic staples. Affordable, accessible quality foods are now within the reach of all our citizens.

Recommended Reading:

• Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included
• Total Nutrition – Make your own Homemade Multivitamin and Mineral Formula
• Holistic Guide to Healing the Endocrine System and Balancing Our Hormones
• Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease
• How to Eat Healthy On a Budget
• Eating Right when the Budget is Tight

Sources:

• Vitacost – Wikipedia
• Company information supplied by Vitacost
• Thrive Market wants to build an online Whole Foods for people who aren’t rich – Recode
• Can Thrive Market be a Kinder, Gentler Amazon for Organic Food? – Civil Eats

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:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Celebrities Against GMOs

Sources:

• UN/WHO panel in conflict of interest row over glyphosate cancer risk – The Guardian
• Genetically Engineered Crops Are Safe, Analysis Finds – The New York Times
• U.N. experts find weed killer glyphosate unlikely to cause cancer – Reuters

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 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:

• Doctors Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Scientists Against Vaccines – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Detox Cheap and Easy Without Fasting – Recipes Included
• Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Vaccines, Retroviruses, DNA, and the Discovery That Destroyed  Judy Mikovits’ Career

For the first time since their introduction in 1996, the number of acres with planted GMO crops and the value of GMO seeds has declined. Down to 444 million acres in 2015 from 448.5 million in 2014, the overall acreage declined by a rate of about 1%. That’s not a huge percentage change, but the reasons behind the decline bode well for the current push to label, minimize, and ideally eliminate genetically modified crops. It’s good news for those opposed to GMOs and here’s why.

There are three nations growing about 75% of GMOs. The U.S. grows the largest portion of GMOs in the world with over 175 million acres dedicated to modified corn, soybeans, canola, sugar beets, and other crops. But they’re also responsible for the biggest decline –  5.4 million acres.  In contrast, Argentina and Brazil, the other nations responsible for the bulk of GMOs, actually experienced a growth in the number of acres planted, more than five million acres between them.

For those looking to keep the U.S. decline going, the big question is why. Organizations monitoring these numbers cite a saturated market and a decrease in the value and price for commodity crops like corn and soybeans. While that’s a stock answer, digging a little deeper reveals a landscape changing for the better in the U.S. Vermont has passed a labeling law. Massive food companies like Campbell’s and General Mills have committed to labeling to their products in stores, and newly developed GM apples and potatoes have been unable to gain traction with large corporate customers like McDonald’s and Wendy’s. In addition, sales of processed foods are down overall, indicating a population that wants to be healthier.

For everyone who claims that labeling GMOs won’t be an issue for sales as consumers know they’re safe thanks to science (spoiler alert: no, not on your life), it doesn’t matter. Whether or not people purposefully reject GM foods, choosing fewer processed foods accomplishes the same thing as rejecting genetically modified crops, as an estimated 70% of processed foods contain GMOs.

When You Can No Longer Stuff 5 Pounds of Poop in a 10 Pound Bag

Another reason for the decline of GMO acreage? The lack of acreage left to expand to. The notion that acreage expansion is becoming less feasible for bio-tech crops due to them already being everywhere is a bittersweet one. No more GMOs? Great! No more room for anything? Alarming. There is only so much usable farmland over the world, and the nearly two decades of growth has taken much of that.

Unfortunately, that land can never be returned to its previous condition due in large part to wholesale pesticide use that has drastically reduced beneficial microbes in the soil and the degraded quality of topsoil. Still, there is a silver lining. More countries are banning or limiting the amount of GMOs grown within their borders. While it might still be too late, these measures can do something to preserve the resources we have left in the face of an increasingly uncertain future.

Keep the Momentum Going

Bio-tech companies are introducing more strains of GM plants as a way to diversify and expand their market, including new strains of cowpeas aimed at reducing hunger in Africa. But is this diversification a good thing? In reality, the decline in GMO acreage has more benefits than detriments, as the agricultural business itself is the one that needs to diversify (and not just offer a non-bruising apple). Supporting a system that spends a massive amount of money on commodity crops that produce little actual nutrition is causing damage that we’re not sure we can fix. There isn’t enough evidence to support the claim that GMOs can or will end world hunger, certainly not enough to counteract the environmental devastation and probable health risks.

The effects of saying no to GMO food are both charitable and selfish. Fewer GMOs means less processed food, which makes you feel better. Fewer GMOs also means room for  greater crop diversity, less power in the pockets of big agriculture, and fewer small farmers stuck in a cycle of paying for seeds prior to each planting and increasing their use of increasingly ineffective herbicides and pesticides. The win is there. Let’s keep spreading the love around.

Recommended Reading:

• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials
• Candida, Gut Flora, Allergies, and Disease
• Heal Cavities, Gum Disease, Naturally with Organic Oral Care – Toothpaste recipes included

Sources:

• Acres For Genetically Modified Crops Declined in 2015 – nytimes.com
• Is The Era of Big Food Coming to An End – theguardian.com
• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods – organiclifestylemagazine.com
• GE Crops and Unsustainable Agricultural Practices are Destroying Our Planet’s Soil and Food Supply – mercola.com

If we ever wanted to see the end of a piece of legislation, it would be the DARK Act. If you are not familiar with it, this legislation is aimed at taking away our right to know what we are eating. States will not be able to legislate GMO labeling. The DARK Act completely blocks efforts to label genetically modified foods.

What it’s really all about is big business, corruption, and empty biotech promises and lies.

Big Business

This may seem a little off topic, but this fact about big business is really interesting. According to the Small Business Administration, as of 2010, the United States was home to 27.9 million small businesses and only 18,500 large businesses. In this case, a large business is defined as a business employing 500 or more employees. Yes, that’s right; 99.7% of the businesses in the United States are small businesses with 500 or fewer employees. So how and why do these few businesses carry so much weight and influence?

Corruption?

What else could it be other than corruption and payoffs? Why would our elected officials, whose sworn duty is to serve the people they represent, be so hell bent on ignoring the rights and wishes of the American people? Why do they want federal legislation that denies the rights of Americans to know what they are eating and what they are feeding their children?

Do they really think biotech is the answer to world hunger when other countries are seeing through the propaganda and lies and realizing that genetically modified crops are not the panacea they are purported to be. In addition, they are contaminating other crops (heirloom, organic, indigenous) as containment is impossible. (Who can control the wind and the birds?)

According to the Center for Food Safety, here are the results of recent polls of the American people:

Biotech

They keep telling us genetically modified foods are safe, that fear of them is unscientific and frankly stupid. We know better.

Common sense tells us that growing and eating a food genetically modified to kill life (insects, infection, microbes), or modified to be able to withstand being drenched in chemicals designed to kill, not to mentiona all of the other agricultural poisons (that we end up eating) is not smart. Add to that the fact that the chemicals used to grow these plants are destroying farmlands, and it is a no brainer.

We don’t even need the studies showing us that GMOs cause cancer and reproductive failure in lab animals to know this is a bad, bad idea. And yes, these studies do exist. And yes, the biotech companies know they exist. That’s why they do short term studies to “prove” their products are safe and pretend the long-term studies that reveal the real and present dangers don’t exist.

What Can We Do?

On March 1, 2016, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry again revived the DARK Act by voting on legislation, which is now headed to the full Senate. The bipartisan vote was 14-6 in favor.

This piece of legislation “…directs the Agriculture Secretary, in coordination with other federal agencies, to engage in a consumer education and outreach effort. Information will be science-based and related to environmental, nutritional, economic, and humanitarian benefits of agricultural biotechnology.”

While vague, its purpose is to strike down any attempts by individual states to require GMO labeling for food sold in their state. It claims biotech foods are safe and that this is simply an expensive marketing issue. (With a clear message that the American people are deranged and uninformed).

Tell your elected officials how you feel. Tell them that you don’t care that the World Health Organization claims GMOs are safe or that the Senate committee thinks they are safe. You still deserve the right to choose. We don’t need to be in the dark. Turn on the light. Label GMOs.

Related Reading:

• Understanding and Detoxifying Genetically Modified Foods
• Scientists Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• Doctors Against GMOs – Hear From Those Who Have Done the Research
• How to Detoxify From Antibiotics and Other Chemical Antimicrobials
• How To Detoxify and Heal From Vaccinations – For Adults and Children

Sources:

• U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling – Center for Food Safety
• Senate Agriculture Committee Passes Chairman’s Mark on Biotechnology Labeling Solutions – United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, & Forestry