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:



Trends Point to Declining U.S. GMO Sales

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:
Sources:



Will the DARK Act Ever Die? What Can We Do?

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:

When

Who Conducted the Poll?

Pro Mandatory

Labeling

11/23/15

The Mellman Group, Inc.

89%

6/9/2014

Consumer Reports

92%

07/27/13

New York Times

93%

2/25/11

MSNBC

96%

10/10

Reuters and NPR

93%

9/17/10

Washington Post

95%

9/21/10 KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis 95%

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:
Sources:



Genetically Modified Salmon Is On Its Way To Your Store

If you enjoy salmon, eat your fill now. The Food and Drug Administration has announced approval for the first genetically modified animal for consumption, and it’s the Atlantic salmon…and the Pacific-Chinook salmon…and the ocean pout, a creature also known for inspiring a synthetic contribution to less-fattening ice cream, all rolled up into one sentient creation.

The possibility of a genetically engineered salmon is not an unfamiliar one, as biotech company AquaBounty has been attempting to bring the Frankenfish to the public for twenty years. The fish is said to be advantageous because it grows at twice the rate of a regular salmon and requires 75% less food. The company is not planning on letting consumers know that the fish is genetically modified, claiming that as “…the first and only, labeling is a dangerous decision. We’d like to label it as a premium product, but we’ll probably introduce it as Atlantic salmon.” It’s ironic that they use the word dangers in conjunction with actual labeling, as the health and environmental dangers of this fish don;t seem to concern  AquaBounty or the FDA.

Safety Concerns Over the Next Step in GMOs

The debate over the GM salmon from AquaBounty (officially referred to as the AquaAdvantage) has been going on for quite some time, although the approval from the FDA has shifted abstract concepts into something very real and potentially scary. Food and Water Watch and the Consumer’s Union have both expressed concerns about the fish and its impact on health and the environmental threat of a possible escape. Like all GMOs, the salmon has been labeled safe to eat by the FDA. That alone is suspect when you consider the amount of countries worldwide who are banning GMOs, but there are also concerns regarding allergies and how the mix of different fish genetics combined into one fish will affect people. Consumer’s Union has been claiming that the research used to make the decision to approve the salmon suffers from inadequate analysis and a sample size that is too small.

But What if Gets Loose?

Meanwhile, Food and Water Watch is viewing the AquaAvantage from a different angle, and seeing a different problem – escape. The salmon are grown in land-based, contained tanks in Canada and Panama that are sealed completely off and all fish grown for food, as opposed to breeding, are sterile. Or at least they are sterile by FDA standards, which require 95% sterility. Setting aside the questions of what and where exactly the fish for breeding are kept (or if there is even a need for breeding fish when they’re potentially raised in a lab), the FDA maintains that even if the fish were to escape, they would be unable to thrive and establish themselves. Even if the fish aren’t able to sustain a population out in the natural environment, isn’t it naive to assume there won’t be other consequences? Wild salmon that come in contact with farmed salmon have registered a population drop of more than half due to parasites and disease. At what point does the desire for cheap salmon outweigh the increasing delicate needs of the actual wild salmon providing the genes for the Frankenfish? Despite claims that the potential of escape is highly unlikely, Food and Water Watch remains committed to making sure that GMO salmon does not reach the marketplace.

More Care is Needed in Introducing GM Meats

The marketplace at the moment has a slightly different view from the FDA. Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s have been critical of the AquaAdvantage and have publicly pledged not to sell the salmon. Other retailers like Safeway and Kroger also have no plans to stock the product. The criticism from consumer and environmental groups, as well as the lack of support from stores, have the potential to stop the forward march (swim, really) of the GMO salmon. Anything can happen within the two-year period from approval to market. If you oppose GM salmon, now is the time for your voice to be heard.

Extensive research occurs when new varieties of conventional foods like fruits and vegetables are introduced. A newly developed type of apple, for instance, takes an average of 15 years. A salmon spliced together from three different fish and altered at the base genetic level is a huge step in the food system and should not have any room for groups to claim inadequate analysis. The consequences of unleashing the Frankenfish could permanently damage the oceanic ecosystem or even play out like a science fiction movie. Do we want to be the at the mercy of our own ill-advised creation because the population is looking for cheaper salmon? At the very least we should be able to know what we’re being sold.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Formaldehyde in GMOs, Yet Another Unlisted Ingredient

By policy, the FDA considers GMO foods to be substantially equivalent to their non-genetically modified counterparts, and to be generally recognized as safe. GMOs do after all, look very similar to their conventional counterparts and they are grown under somewhat similar conditions. Under FDA guidelines, this leaves foods that are newly invented to be poorly tested, and the FDA assumes them to be safe without sufficient evidence to reach such conclusions. Under the limitations of our current biotechnology, whenever genes are artificially manipulated, unintended consequences inevitably result.

Independent Scientists Are Finding That GMOs are Not Substantially Equivalent to Their Conventional Counterparts

A new study from Cambridge University demonstrates that GMO soy is less nutritious and more toxic than conventional soy. Each GMO crop is unique, and this study focused solely on one type of genetically modified soy. Undoubtedly, more research is needed on other GMOs. So far the FDA’s notions of substantial equivalence, are not holding up in independent research. As is often the case, independent science is yielding objective results, giving us the good news with the bad.

The Revolving Door Told Us GMOs Were Safe

FDA assumptions of substantial equivalence were at best based upon wishful thinking, but much more likely to have been decisions made with the intention of prioritizing profit over health. The FDA is after all, staffed by a revolving door of management level biotech and pharmaceutical employees. FDA hierarchy move back and forth between the private and public sectors, reaping huge benefits along the way. Consumer advocates don’t work at the FDA; it is the industry insiders who do. The independent scientists are doing the testing for safety that the FDA should have done.

System Biology is Yielding New Insight Into GMOs

Using a systems biology approach, two researchers from Cambridge University have demonstrated how the genetic modifications made to CP4 EPSPS, better known as Roundup Ready soy, has resulted in significant systemic changes to the plant’s nutritional value, rendering the GMO soy bean less nutritious and more toxic.

Dr. Ayyadurai and Dr. Deonikar’s results show how instead of the plant producing normal levels of enzymes and antioxidants such as glutathione and super oxide dismutase, Round Up Ready soy is almost completely devoid of glutathione. This GMO soy produces significant amounts of formaldehyde, a substance that is widely known to be toxic and a carcinogen.

Formaldehyde Is Not The Kind of Chemical That You Would Want in Your Food

Formaldehyde has a lot of uses in manufacturing. It is often used as an additive in glue, in wrinkle free shirts, as an additive in hair straighteners, and it has been used as an embalming agent for thousands of years. (It is believed that the Egyptians were the first to use formaldehyde). The chemical is falling out favor with many funeral directors. When used in embalming, great effort is made to avoid accidentally breathing in the fumes. Despite improved ventilation and modern protective gear, many funeral homes refuse to work with formaldehyde simply because it is too dangerous. Its ubiquitous use in manufacturing has come under scrutiny as well.

We can add formaldehyde as yet another one of the ingredients that is being hidden in our food. The struggle to label genetically modified soy can be thought of as the struggle to label formaldehyde laden, antioxidant deficient soy as well. There is no scientific justification to assume that GMOs are substantially equivalent to other foods. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that GMOs kill beneficail microbes in our gut and damage our digestive system (see Leaky Gut Syndrome and Autoimmune Diseases). Afterall, that’s what they’re designed to do.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:



Grocery Manufacturers Association – Leading opponents of GMO labeling

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the largest organizations representing the food industry. As of 2013, they had over 300 member businesses in food and beverage production as well as biotech and seed companies.

The Grocery Manufacturers Association is one of the leading opponents of GMO labeling. They have poured millions of dollars into defeating bills to label GMOs introduced in various states and are big supporters of the DARK Act, a bill made to make labeling GMOs illegal at the federal level. In the 2012 ballot initiative in California (Proposition 37) and 2013 ballot initiative in Washington (Proposition 522), the Grocery Manufacturers Association and its members donated over 54 million dollars, just to fight labeling.

This organization spends millions of dollars a year lobbying at the federal and state level, primarily to fight GMO labeling. In 2014, they poured money into fighting the GMO labeling initiatives in Colorado (Proposition 92) and Oregon (Proposition 105). The GMA spent big dollars convincing the public that labeling GMOs will increase overall food prices. Unfortunately, their efforts have been successful, though by a narrow margin. Of the 68 companies and organizations listed that funded opposition to these four propositions, only seven were not members of the Grocery Manufacturers Association as of 2013. These 7 organizations are identified.

Full List of Right To Know Opponents

No. Donor
No On 37
No on 522
No on 92
No on 105
1
Monsanto Co.
$8,112,867
$5,374,411
$5,958,750
$4,755,878
2
Dupont
$5,400,000
$3,880,159
$4,928,150
$3,000,000
3
PepsiCo
$2,485,400
$2,352,966
$2,350,000
$1,650,000
4
Grocery Manufacturers Association
$2,002,000
$11,000,000**
$169,190
$106,600
5
Kraft Foods
$2,000,500
$870,000
$1,030,000
6
BASF Plant Science

(Non-Member)

$2,000,000
$500,000
7
Bayer CropScience
$2,000,000
$591,654
8
DOW Agrosciences
$2,000,000
$591,654
$1,157,150
$306,500
9
Syngenta Corporation
$2,000,000
10
Coca-Cola North America
$1,690,500
$1,520,351
$1,170,000
$1,108,000
11
Nestle USA
$1,461,600
$1,528,206
12
General Mills
$1,230,300
$869,271
$695,000
$820,000
13
ConAgra Foods
$1,176,700
$828,251
$350,000
$250,000
14
Kellogg’s Company
$790,700
$322,050
$500,000
250,000
15
Smithfield Foods
$683,900
$250,000
16
Delmonte Foods
$674,100
$125,677
17
Campbell Soup Company
$598,000
$384,888
18
Smucker Company
$555,000
$349,978
$295,000
$345,000
19
Hershey Company
$518,900
$360,450
$320,000
$380,000
20
Biotechnology Industry Organization

(Non-Member)

$502,000
11,200
$108,000
21
Heinz Company
$500,000
22
Mars Inc.
$498,350
23
Hormel Foods
$467,900
$76,803
$85,000
85,000
24
Unilever
$467,100
25
Bimbo Bakeries
$422,900
$137,460
$230,000
270,000
26
Bumble Bee Foods
$420,600
$52,365
$45,000
$50,000
27
Ocean Spray Cranberries
$409,100
$80,295
$35,000
80,000
28
Council for Biotechnology Information

(Non-Member)

$375,000
$12,827
29
Sara Lee Corporation

(Non-Member)

$343,600
30
Abbott Nutrition
$334,500
$185,025
$160,000
$190,000
31
Pinnacle Foods Group
$266,100
$175,425
32
Dean Foods
$253,950
$174,553
33
Cargill
$250,000
$143,133
$111,000
$135,000
34
Bunge North America
$248,600
$137,896
35
Rich Products Corporation
$248,300
$34,911
$30,000
36
McCormick & Company
$248,200
$148,369
$130,000
37
Flowers Foods
$182,100
$205,099
$250,000
38
Mondelez International
$181,000
$210,336
$720,000
39
Dole Packaged Foods
$175,000
40
Knouse Foods
$167,600
$20,946
$20,000
$25,000
41
Welch Foods
$167,000
$41,893
$30,000
$35,000
42
Land O’Lakes
$153,300
$144,878
$760,000
$900,000
43
Sunny Delight Beverages
$139,700
$30,547
$25,000
$25,000
44
Wrigley Jr. Company
$123,350
45
Tree Top Inc.
$110,600
46
Clement Pappas & Co.
$100,000
$30,547
47
Hilshire Brands Company
$85,900
$282,775
48
Hero North America

(Non-Member)

$80,800
49
Mead Johnson Nutrition Company
$80,000
$50,000
$50,000
50
Faribault Foods
$76,000
51
Solae Inc.
$62,500
52
Goya Foods
$56,700
53
McCain Foods USA
$53,400
54
Godiva Chocolatier
$42,700
55
B&G Foods
$40,000
56
Clorox Company
$39,700
$17,455
57
Bruce Foods
$38,500
$4,364
58
C.H. Guenther & Son
$24,700
59
Morton Salt
$21,400
60
Reily Foods Company
$18,400
61
Inventure Foods
$15,600
62
Hirzel Canning Company
$15,000
63
Idahoan Foods
$10,000
64
Sargento Foods

(Non-Member)

$10,000
65
Snack Foods Association

(Non-Member)

$10,000
66
Shearer’s Foods
$36,656
$30,000
$35,000
67
Niagara Bottling
$10,000
68
Michael Foods
$30,000

**GMA member donations included in list

Grocery Manufacturers Association The Leading opponents of GMO labeling

In 2013, the Grocery Manufacturers Association took down the publicly available list of members from their website. The 2013 membership directory is archived online and available here.

The Food and Water Watch, a consumer advocacy group, listed the 2012 Board of Directors of the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the amount of money each group contributed. These companies are some of the biggest opponents of GMO labeling. Additionally, these companies are supporting the GMA’s lawsuit against the State of Vermont. In a democratic process the people of Vermont have spoken, and they want GMOs labeled, the GMA is suing to subvert the results of this democratic process. These companies spend big dollars blocking your right to know, not just through the GMA but by direct campaign donations as well.

In these matters, money talks. However, there was a good reason that the Grocery Manufacturers Association no longer publicizes their list of members; it is becoming increasingly expensive to ignore the will of the people. The companies are obviously worried about damage to their image from blocking your right to know what is in your food. If we don’t vote with our dollars, organizations like Monsanto, the GMA, Pepsi, and other companies will vote with our dollars for us, and not with any regard to our wishes.

Recommended Reading:
Sources:

http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/GMA_Profile1.pdf#_ga=1.199922478.1015463669.1441382848




Why Are We Accepting Less Healthy, Lower Quality Options From Food Companies?

Living a healthy lifestyle is all about making the healthiest choices. But what if the best choice (or the information needed to make the best choice) wasn’t available to you because the people tasked with looking out for you and your interests don’t have the same high standards and the corporations don’t deliver the same high-quality products in the United States as they do in Europe?

Whether it’s an American corporation introducing organic products in Europe but not in the U.S., the fact that we are denied the opportunity to know what’s in our food or where it came from, or the disproportionate amount of refined sugar and chemicals in our everyday products, it’s disheartening to realize that companies are more than happy to take advantage of corporate friendly, health-indifferent attitudes in the United States. For every company claiming that a safer, healthier way of producing food isn’t “cost-effective,” it is interesting to see what they’re doing in other countries. It’s becoming increasingly clear that cost is not the only reason they’re giving consumers in the U.S. less than their best.

Organic Fast Food is Finally an Option – But Not For Everyone

Let’s look at McDonald’s, one of the largest fast food chains and a worldwide symbol of the United States. They’ve been experiencing a decline in sales numbers as consumers make better lifestyle choices and become more health-conscious. The United States is now the largest organic market in the world, and McDonald’s corporate attempt to grab a piece of that pie is their new pledge to use only cage-free eggs by 2025. They’re also introducing a hamburger made entirely of organic meat.

McDonald’s promised the European Union they would only use cage-free eggs by 2011. Now they make the same promise to U.S. citizens with a 10-year target date? And yes, they will be offering an organic burger – but only in Germany, the second-largest organic market.

McDonald’s also sells organic milk at their U.K. locations. Many consumers in the United States are not aware that McDonald’s can and does make more animal welfare friendly and environmentally sustainable choices in other countries even though we are the largest organic market in the world.

Three Little Letters

Countless activists in the United States are fighting for the right to mandate labeling genetically modified foods. Opponents claim labeling all of these products will raise the cost of food, a cost they will be forced to pass on to the consumer. But this argument ignores the fact that the European Union, Japan, Brazil, Australia, and China are among the 64 countries that currently require GMO labeling. If so many countries already require labeling, why not simply extend that consideration to the United States? Obviously, corporations are aware of the rising numbers of health-conscious Americans that will choose a more environmentally conscious and healthy option.

A Little Something Extra

When looking at the way food corporations treat consumers in the United States, it’s also interesting to note the unhealthy things they add to our food. The FDA seems content to let corporations treat us like guinea pigs, sitting back and claiming there is a lack of concrete evidence to remove ingredients until something forces their hand.

For example, the majority of pigs in the United States are still raised using the muscle drug ractopomine, which is banned in the European Union, China, and Russia. The U.S. has been claiming there is no evidence for this ban in science, while China, the largest consumer of pork worldwide, sees it as a threat to food safety. It seems odd that the pork companies in the U.S. argue that there is no science supporting concern when other nations have clearly found evidence to the contrary.

This isn’t the only time products in the United States have added a little something extra that can compromise our health. Companies in the U.S. can sell “bromated bread” which contains potassium bromate. Since the 1980s, that additive has been considered carcinogenic, but the FDA only asks that it be eliminated on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately, this is not the only potentially dangerous food additive that the FDA is unwilling to take a stand on, leaving U.S. consumers at the whims of companies trying to make the most profit possible.

Consumer Action

You’re a consumer in the United States who has done the research, and you’ve decided that you want to lead a healthier, more sustainable, eco-friendly life. It’s hard enough to change old habits and learn to appreciate healthy choices without having to sift through misinformation. As you become more informed and discover the extent to which you need to protect your own health, you may become furious with the American food system. You’d have every right to be. More and more companies show they are willing to accommodate stricter international standards while taking full advantage of lax regulations in the United States.

Let’s face it, corporations run America. Despite the fact that 90% of Americans want GMOs labeled, The DARK Act has passed Congress. Our crops and our soil are poisoned with glyphosate. And it’s not just our food industry that is corrupt. Our personal care products are filled with ingredients that are banned overseas. Our water is contaminated with fluoride. Until we face the fact that our government officials are bought and owned by corporate interests, and we make real change in the electoral process and how we protect consumers, we will have to provide our own due diligence to protect our health.

Recommended Reading:
Sources: