Sunday, July 23, 2017
Neon Leon: The Great Food Fight--Round One
Neon Leon: The Great Food Fight--Round One: "To eat is a necessity, but to eat intelligently is an art." Francois de La Rochefoucauld 1613–1680 The quote is from the ...
The Great Food Fight--Round One
"To eat is a necessity, but to eat intelligently is an art." Francois de La Rochefoucauld 1613–1680
The quote is from the French nobleman and writer who focused on eating food that is fresh and wholesome without resorting to gluttony. Many people these days also consider intelligent eating as the art of getting the right balance between quantity, quality and the combination of protein, carbohydrates, fats, minerals and vitamins, good carbs, bad carbs, good fats and bad fats, it’s not only an art, it is a science. But how we obtain that balance has evolved into a heated, world wide battle for decades.
This posting will be round one in the fight(s) over food and will focus on organic versus conventionally farmed food. Round two will be centered on the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Round three will attempt to peer into the future to determine what farms will look like in ten years (small farms or massive ones, high tech or low tech?) as well as any new types of food will we begin to consume.
The opposing camps of scientists, farmers and regular folk can't even agree on how to define food categories such as natural, organic or sustainable. I don't pretend to resolve these arguments here, but it is my hope that readers can digest enough facts to get a balanced meal. Bon appe'tit!
I will set the table by noting that most food experts agree that the
U.S. organic sector is currently valued at around $43 billion. There is no question that organic has become big business. If you stroll down supermarket aisles these days you can see how major food companies are trying to get a piece of the action.
The cost of organics is a major concern. Last year, the non -profit Consumer Reports Organization said: "Many consumers would likely buy more organic food if it weren't so expensive. We recently conducted a unique price study, comparing the cost of a market basket of organic goods—fruits and vegetables, meat and chicken, milk, and other edibles—to their conventional counterparts at eight different national, regional, and online grocers. We compared more than 100 product pairings in all. On average, organic foods were 47 percent more expensive, but the range was huge. In a couple of instances, the organic product was actually cheaper....In fact, depending on where we shopped, we found organic lettuce carrots, maple syrup, olive oil, and cream cheese for the same price or less than their conventional counterparts."
The Washington Post ran a column by Peter Laufer a few years ago click here entitled "The Five Myths About Organic Food", to wit: (1) If a product is labeled organic, it hasn't been exposed to herbicides or pesticides. Laufer notes that "The only guarantee of a 100% Organic label is issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which means meat, eggs and dairy are free of growth antibiotics and growth hormones; produce is grown with fertilizers free of synthetic or sewage components and no usage of GMOs (more on this later). USDA's "organic" label means that 95% of the ingredients are organic. The 5% left can be sprayed with herbicides while "...200 non-organic substances can be added to food without sacrificing the label." In addition, the "made with organic ingredients" means only 70% of ingredients must be organic. (2) Organic food is better for you. Few would argue with that statement; the old adage that Mother Nature knows best remains paramount. The scientific community begs to differ, however. Laufter quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics who have said "in the long term, there is no currently no direct evidence that consuming an organic diet leads to improved health or lower risk of disease." He also points to a controversial 2012 Stanford University report which concluded this: "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health." (3) Organic food is better for the environment. Laufter largely agrees, but notes how organic foods grown in distant countries have a negative environmental effect because of the carbon footprint of the fossil fuels used to transport them. He also questions the wisdom of "...converting natural habitat to vast tracts of farmland because the practice harms local flora and fauna." (4) Products labeled organic are inspected to guarantee their purity. This writer has chronicled the failures of certification in the food supplement industry. Not surprisingly, organic foods certification processes are also wide open to similar fraud (bribery, forged labels) and faulty inspections (a simple review of paperwork without a strong "boots in the dirt" effort). (5) Imported products labeled as organic meet U.S. standards. Americans, including myself, eagerly gobble up blueberries, melons, nuts and vegetables which are not in season or not produced on American soil. Those labels are certified by foreign contractors who are susceptible to the same greed as American ones, of course. But the extremely high level of nation wide corruption in places such as Venezuela, Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa virtually insures that any evaluation of food production is largely non-existent.
The Post's article was quickly attacked by The Organic Center Organization reported here. (1) Laufer fails to "....describe the rigorous preventive systems organic producers are required to implement, or recognize that organic certifiers conduct periodic residue testing for prohibited pesticides, contaminates and GMOs." click hereThey also said "organic producers are required to use non-toxic....pest, weed, and disease prevention plans prior to....organically approved material application." (2) Laufer's "....conclusions....ignore scientific findings. On the contrary, several studies have shown that raising animals without the use of antibiotics, as required by organic standards, can decrease consumer risk of exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Research has also shown that multi-drug resistance is lower in organic operations than conventional operations. Researchers conducting these studies conclude that “Organic farming practices contribute to decreased dissemination of antibiotic resistance." (3) "Mounting evidence proves the environmental benefits of organic agriculture. Although crops produced far away from where they are sold might have a higher carbon footprint than locally produced crops, this is... a transportation problem not linked to organic per se. His point that conversion of natural habitat to farmland can be harmful to the environment is not an organic issue, but an agricultural one." (4) Attempts to discredit the annual inspection process to which all organic producers and processors must submit ignore the fact that organic certification is ....[a] heavily regulated certification systems domestically.The reality: organic farmers and processors are inspected at least once per year by a competent and highly trained inspector. (5) All food labeled as “organic” in the United States, regardless of origin, must be certified to USDA.... standards, and USDA accredits all certifiers (domestic and foreign) to the same requirements to uphold the integrity of the....label. USDA has revoked the [authority] of foreign certifiers who failed to [show] competency and.... announces the discovery of [fraud]. Despite the rare....fraud [event]....the organic label remains the only regulated claim with federal oversight and enforcement... the US currently has organic equivalency agreements with Canada, the EU, and Japan." Editor's note: India, Israel, New Zealand, Korea, Switzerland and Mexico also have the agreements.
Wikipedia has a list of countries with regulations on organic agriculture here guaranteed to strain your eyes. I counted 45 countries with fully implemented regulations, 12 with not fully implemented status, 3 have only export regulations and 19 countries have regulations in development.
While we are on the subject of labeling food, I need to address GMO labels also (my next post will address the pros and cons of GMO's in our food).
In July 2016, the GMO Labeling Law was passed. It was dubbed the DARK Act by critics (Denying Americans the Right to Know) and established national standards for food labeling when foods contain GMO ingredients. While proposed legislation in 2015 would have made GMO labeling only a voluntary program, the new law—makes GMO labeling mandatory. The law also takes precedent over individual state GMO labeling laws.
However, the law is still a work in progress. Although the GMO Labeling law provides information about the ways companies will be permitted to disclose GMO ingredients, it leaves the specific regulations implementing the law to the USDA by July 2018. But it remains to be seen how, if at all, the new law and the buzz surrounding it will cause some companies to modify any prior decisions to label GMO-containing products. Moreover, will the law impact the FDA’s highly anticipated definition of the term “natural” in food labeling? Significantly, will the Trump administration affect implementation of the law, and if so, how?
Importantly, the GMO Labeling law expressly preempts any individual state GMO labeling laws. This prevents a chaotic patchwork of different laws in different states. Now, the food industry will look to USDA regulations.
The GMO Labeling law requires that disclosure be made on a food label through one of the following ways: text, a symbol or picture, a hotline consumers can call to receive GMO information or a bar code that links to a website displaying GMO information for the product. In my opinion, there is one problem with that provision--the reality that less affluent citizens can't afford cell phones to read bar codes and calling an 800 number for every item on a shopping list would be a monumental pain in the a**.
The law has no teeth either; it does not provide any penalties for violations of its terms and states that USDA has no recall authority for any food not in compliance with the GMO labeling laws. The imposition of penalties is left to the states.
The DARK Act begins a new chapter of the labeling saga, but the tale is far from over.
Because we have become so far removed from the earth that we eat mountains of candy, soda pop and Big Macs, we often forget the connection of good food and health. Perhaps the famous Greek physician, Herophilus (335-280 BC) said it best: “When health is absent, wisdom cannot reveal itself, art cannot manifest, strength cannot fight, wealth becomes useless, and intelligence cannot be applied.”
This posting will be round one in the fight(s) over food and will focus on organic versus conventionally farmed food. Round two will be centered on the use of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Round three will attempt to peer into the future to determine what farms will look like in ten years (small farms or massive ones, high tech or low tech?) as well as any new types of food will we begin to consume.
The opposing camps of scientists, farmers and regular folk can't even agree on how to define food categories such as natural, organic or sustainable. I don't pretend to resolve these arguments here, but it is my hope that readers can digest enough facts to get a balanced meal. Bon appe'tit!
I will set the table by noting that most food experts agree that the
U.S. organic sector is currently valued at around $43 billion. There is no question that organic has become big business. If you stroll down supermarket aisles these days you can see how major food companies are trying to get a piece of the action.
The cost of organics is a major concern. Last year, the non -profit Consumer Reports Organization said: "Many consumers would likely buy more organic food if it weren't so expensive. We recently conducted a unique price study, comparing the cost of a market basket of organic goods—fruits and vegetables, meat and chicken, milk, and other edibles—to their conventional counterparts at eight different national, regional, and online grocers. We compared more than 100 product pairings in all. On average, organic foods were 47 percent more expensive, but the range was huge. In a couple of instances, the organic product was actually cheaper....In fact, depending on where we shopped, we found organic lettuce carrots, maple syrup, olive oil, and cream cheese for the same price or less than their conventional counterparts."
The Washington Post ran a column by Peter Laufer a few years ago click here entitled "The Five Myths About Organic Food", to wit: (1) If a product is labeled organic, it hasn't been exposed to herbicides or pesticides. Laufer notes that "The only guarantee of a 100% Organic label is issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which means meat, eggs and dairy are free of growth antibiotics and growth hormones; produce is grown with fertilizers free of synthetic or sewage components and no usage of GMOs (more on this later). USDA's "organic" label means that 95% of the ingredients are organic. The 5% left can be sprayed with herbicides while "...200 non-organic substances can be added to food without sacrificing the label." In addition, the "made with organic ingredients" means only 70% of ingredients must be organic. (2) Organic food is better for you. Few would argue with that statement; the old adage that Mother Nature knows best remains paramount. The scientific community begs to differ, however. Laufter quotes the American Academy of Pediatrics who have said "in the long term, there is no currently no direct evidence that consuming an organic diet leads to improved health or lower risk of disease." He also points to a controversial 2012 Stanford University report which concluded this: "There isn't much difference between organic and conventional foods, if you're an adult and making a decision based solely on your health." (3) Organic food is better for the environment. Laufter largely agrees, but notes how organic foods grown in distant countries have a negative environmental effect because of the carbon footprint of the fossil fuels used to transport them. He also questions the wisdom of "...converting natural habitat to vast tracts of farmland because the practice harms local flora and fauna." (4) Products labeled organic are inspected to guarantee their purity. This writer has chronicled the failures of certification in the food supplement industry. Not surprisingly, organic foods certification processes are also wide open to similar fraud (bribery, forged labels) and faulty inspections (a simple review of paperwork without a strong "boots in the dirt" effort). (5) Imported products labeled as organic meet U.S. standards. Americans, including myself, eagerly gobble up blueberries, melons, nuts and vegetables which are not in season or not produced on American soil. Those labels are certified by foreign contractors who are susceptible to the same greed as American ones, of course. But the extremely high level of nation wide corruption in places such as Venezuela, Ukraine and Sub-Saharan Africa virtually insures that any evaluation of food production is largely non-existent.
The Post's article was quickly attacked by The Organic Center Organization reported here. (1) Laufer fails to "....describe the rigorous preventive systems organic producers are required to implement, or recognize that organic certifiers conduct periodic residue testing for prohibited pesticides, contaminates and GMOs." click hereThey also said "organic producers are required to use non-toxic....pest, weed, and disease prevention plans prior to....organically approved material application." (2) Laufer's "....conclusions....ignore scientific findings. On the contrary, several studies have shown that raising animals without the use of antibiotics, as required by organic standards, can decrease consumer risk of exposure to antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Research has also shown that multi-drug resistance is lower in organic operations than conventional operations. Researchers conducting these studies conclude that “Organic farming practices contribute to decreased dissemination of antibiotic resistance." (3) "Mounting evidence proves the environmental benefits of organic agriculture. Although crops produced far away from where they are sold might have a higher carbon footprint than locally produced crops, this is... a transportation problem not linked to organic per se. His point that conversion of natural habitat to farmland can be harmful to the environment is not an organic issue, but an agricultural one." (4) Attempts to discredit the annual inspection process to which all organic producers and processors must submit ignore the fact that organic certification is ....[a] heavily regulated certification systems domestically.The reality: organic farmers and processors are inspected at least once per year by a competent and highly trained inspector. (5) All food labeled as “organic” in the United States, regardless of origin, must be certified to USDA.... standards, and USDA accredits all certifiers (domestic and foreign) to the same requirements to uphold the integrity of the....label. USDA has revoked the [authority] of foreign certifiers who failed to [show] competency and.... announces the discovery of [fraud]. Despite the rare....fraud [event]....the organic label remains the only regulated claim with federal oversight and enforcement... the US currently has organic equivalency agreements with Canada, the EU, and Japan." Editor's note: India, Israel, New Zealand, Korea, Switzerland and Mexico also have the agreements.
Wikipedia has a list of countries with regulations on organic agriculture here guaranteed to strain your eyes. I counted 45 countries with fully implemented regulations, 12 with not fully implemented status, 3 have only export regulations and 19 countries have regulations in development.
While we are on the subject of labeling food, I need to address GMO labels also (my next post will address the pros and cons of GMO's in our food).
In July 2016, the GMO Labeling Law was passed. It was dubbed the DARK Act by critics (Denying Americans the Right to Know) and established national standards for food labeling when foods contain GMO ingredients. While proposed legislation in 2015 would have made GMO labeling only a voluntary program, the new law—makes GMO labeling mandatory. The law also takes precedent over individual state GMO labeling laws.
However, the law is still a work in progress. Although the GMO Labeling law provides information about the ways companies will be permitted to disclose GMO ingredients, it leaves the specific regulations implementing the law to the USDA by July 2018. But it remains to be seen how, if at all, the new law and the buzz surrounding it will cause some companies to modify any prior decisions to label GMO-containing products. Moreover, will the law impact the FDA’s highly anticipated definition of the term “natural” in food labeling? Significantly, will the Trump administration affect implementation of the law, and if so, how?
Importantly, the GMO Labeling law expressly preempts any individual state GMO labeling laws. This prevents a chaotic patchwork of different laws in different states. Now, the food industry will look to USDA regulations.
The GMO Labeling law requires that disclosure be made on a food label through one of the following ways: text, a symbol or picture, a hotline consumers can call to receive GMO information or a bar code that links to a website displaying GMO information for the product. In my opinion, there is one problem with that provision--the reality that less affluent citizens can't afford cell phones to read bar codes and calling an 800 number for every item on a shopping list would be a monumental pain in the a**.
The law has no teeth either; it does not provide any penalties for violations of its terms and states that USDA has no recall authority for any food not in compliance with the GMO labeling laws. The imposition of penalties is left to the states.
The DARK Act begins a new chapter of the labeling saga, but the tale is far from over.
Because we have become so far removed from the earth that we eat mountains of candy, soda pop and Big Macs, we often forget the connection of good food and health. Perhaps the famous Greek physician, Herophilus (335-280 BC) said it best: “When health is absent, wisdom cannot reveal itself, art cannot manifest, strength cannot fight, wealth becomes useless, and intelligence cannot be applied.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)