The Bite Blog


The Food Movement Must Occupy Wall Street

Topics:
Biotechnology,Food Policy & Politics,Hunger & Food Crisis,Local Food

Saturday, October 29th, 2011, 10:08 AM

by Kristin Wartman, Food Writer
The Food Movement Must Occupy Wall Street
If you are paying attention to Occupy Wall Street–and by now most people are–the anti-corporate message is coming through loud and clear. Most participants at the events now spreading across the country say they are no longer willing to let powerful corporate interests determine the course of their lives. These Americans realize that a participatory democracy is essential.
As it stands today, 75 percent of the population are obese or overweight and many are chronically ill with diet-related diseases. They are also largely dependent on an increasingly unhealthful and contaminated food supply that is heavily controlled by corporate interests. It’s obvious that this is our moment to drive a very important point home: Upending corporate control of the food supply is a fundamental change that must occur if the “99 percent” are to be healthy participants in a true democracy.
This could be a catalyzing moment for the food movement with a real chance for average Americans to see and hear the connection between corporate control of the food supply and our nation’s health crisis. Indeed, the declaration of Occupy Wall Street addresses issues the food movement has been working on for years. The declaration states, “They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.”
Author and activist Naomi Klein has been an outspoken advocate and participant in Occupy Wall Street. When asked how it connects to the food movement she said, “The protest is about the corporate takeover of democracy of our lives in every way. The food movement is inherently anti-corporate and it is inherently about rebuilding a real economy.” She continued, “The food movement is where a lot of the leadership is. Occupy Wall Street is not just about banking legislation. The food movement is paving the way for what needs to happen in manufacturing and I think it’s all connected.”
Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University agrees. “Of course Occupy Wall Street connects to the food movement,” she said. “If we had a healthier financial system, we might be able to fund better food assistance, universal school meals, a rational and effective food safety system, and production agriculture that promotes sustainability and affordable food that is healthier for people and the planet. The food movement needs to be there and its voices heard.”
While powerful players like Goldman Sachs and Fannie Mae were on the lips of nearly every American after the 2008 financial crisis, the names of industrial agriculture corporations remain largely unknown. But consider how much power they wield. Take Monsanto as an example. When Monsanto began selling its genetically modified Roundup Ready soybeans in 1996 only two percent of soybeans in the U.S. contained their patented gene. By 2008, over 90 percent of soybeans in the U.S. contained Monsanto’s gene. This is especially alarming given that soybeans account for the largest source of protein feed and the second largest source of vegetable oil in the world. According to the USDA, in 2008-09, the farm value of soybean production was $29.6 billion, the second highest among U.S. produced crops — and soy is ubiquitous in processed foods. It ends up in the meat, milk, eggs, and farmed fish many Americans consume (as a result of it being in animal feed) as well as thousands upon thousands of packaged foods usually in the form of soy protein isolate, soy isoflavones, textured vegetable protein, and soy oils. Soy accounts for a fifth of the calories in the American diet.
Monsanto has also produced genetically modified seeds for corn, canola, and cotton with many more products being developed including seeds for sugar beets and alfalfa. (To see how ferociously Monsanto protects its patented seeds watch the Oscar-nominated documentary Food, Inc.) As for corn, the highest valued U.S. produced crop, 93 percent of it is genetically engineered. Physicist and internationally renowned activist Dr. Vandana Shiva points out that the notion that genetically engineered food will improve the food supply and improve nutrition is a myth. “These are illusions that are being marketed in order for people to hand over the power to decide what to eat to a handful of corporations,” she said in an interview on her Website.
Another corporation with broad reach and control over the foods we eat is Cargill, which rivals Monsanto in its control of the food supply. It is the largest privately held corporation in the nation, owning Cargill Pork and Cargill Beef, the second largest beef producer in North America. According to Anna Lappe’s book Diet for a Hot Planet, Cargill also owns dozens of subsidiary businesses, is one of the largest commercial cattle feeders in the U.S., the world’s biggest processor, marketer, and distributor of grains, oilseeds, and other agricultural commodities, and controls 80 percent of the European market for soybean crushing with a similar share for animal feed manufacturing.
If you eat any processed or packaged food, or anything from a typical restaurant or café, you can guarantee that Monsanto or Cargill played a role in those foods somewhere along the line. As Dr. Shiva points out in much of her work, these companies contribute to the toxification of our food supply. It’s not only the lack of nutritional value in many of these highly processed foods, but also the actual toxins that are added to genetically engineered foods. Bees, butterflies, cattle and other animals have been dying as a result of these crops, so how are they affecting humans? (You can listen to Dr. Shiva discuss this here).
If America’s health crisis is any indication, corporate control of the food supply is taking the ultimate toll. American children born in 2000 are the first generation not expected to outlive their parents as one in three is likely to develop diabetes in their lifetime, with those rates even higher for black and Latino children. The corporate monopolies over the food supply and the government’s role in facilitating corporate control translates into control over the health of the American population.
Occupy Wall Street illustrates a basic tenet of democracy; we must participate for it to function properly. We must also participate in our food system to develop local food economies that function with our interests in mind. Our first steps must be learning and teaching others about where our food comes from and how to access healthy food. We must also boycott companies like Monsanto and Cargill whose sole interest is profit, not our health or protecting the environment.
Writer, activist, and academic Raj Patel said that while Wall Street is certainly behind many problems with the food system, there is an even deeper connection between the two. “At its best, the food movement is about learning to see the politics in our everyday lives and then to take a stand against injustice,” he said. “That’s what Occupy Wall Street is doing–creating a space to learn, demand, exchange and organize.”
Occupy Wall Street understands that the corporations cannot be allowed to control our political systems. Similarly, when corporations control the food supply we are left with an unsafe and unregulated food supply and a population in the midst of a dire health crisis as a result of corporate carelessness and greed.
This post originally appeared on Civil Eats

Comments (0)

ConAgra Sued Over GMO ‘100% Natural’ Cooking Oils

Topics:
Biotechnology,Food Policy & Politics

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011, 9:39 PM

by Michele Simon | Aug 24, 2011
Opinion, Food Safety News
If you use Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class action against food giant ConAgra for deceptively marketing the products as natural.
These days it’s hard to walk down a supermarket aisle without bumping into a food product that claims to be “all-natural.” If you’ve ever wondered how even some junk food products can claim this moniker (witness: Cheetos Natural Puff White Cheddar Cheese Flavored Snacks – doesn’t that sound like it came straight from your garden?) the answer is simple if illogical: the Food and Drug Administration has not defined the term natural.
So food marketers, knowing that many shoppers are increasingly concerned about healthful eating, figured: why not just slap the natural label on anything we can get away with? That wishful thinking may soon be coming to an end if a few clever consumer lawyers have anything to say about it.
While various lawsuits have been filed in recent years claiming that food companies using the term natural are engaging in deceptive marketing, a suit filed in June in California against ConAgra could make the entire industrial food complex shake in its boots.
The plaintiff claims he relied on Wesson oils “100% natural” label, when the products are actually made from genetically modified organisms.
GMOs Not Exactly Natural, So Says Monsanto
Ironically, the complaint cites a definition of GMOs by none other than Monsanto, the company most notorious for its promotion of the technology. According to Monsanto, GMOs are: “Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs.”
The complaint also quotes a GMO definition from the World Health Organization: “Organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally.”
Four Wesson varieties are implicated in the case: Canola Oil, Vegetable Oil, Corn Oil, and Best Blend. And it’s not just on the label that ConAgra is using the natural claim, but also online and in print advertisements. (Additional silly health claims on the website include “cholesterol free”–vegetable oils couldn’t possibly contain cholesterol anyway.)
The complaint describes the extent of ConAgra’s deception, alleging the “labels are intended to evoke a natural, wholesome product.” And further:
The “100% Natural” statement is, like much of the label on Wesson Oils, displayed in vibrant green. The “Wesson” name is haloed by the image of the sun, and the Canola Oil features a picture of a green heart.
A green heart — you just can’t get any healthier than that. However, as registered dietitian Andy Bellatti told me: “These oils are high in omega 6 fatty acids, which in excessive amounts are actually bad for your heart.” Guess they left that part out of the green heart icon.
Supermarkets Chock-full of GMOs
But what makes this lawsuit especially intriguing is its potentially far-ranging impact. According to the Center for Food Safety: “upwards of 70 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves — from soda to soup, crackers to condiments — contain genetically-engineered ingredients.” While it’s unclear how many of these products also claim to be natural, given all the greenwashing going on these days, it’s likely to number in the thousands.
Specifically, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as are 91 percent of soybeans, both extremely common ingredients in processed foods. Numerous groups including the Center for Food Safety have been calling attention to the potential hazards of GMOs for years. From their website:
A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer.
Not exactly the stuff that green hearts are made of. The legal complaint also notes that on its corporate website (“but not on the Wesson site that consumers are more likely to visit”), ConAgra implies that its oils are genetically engineered. The company concludes: “Ultimately, consumers will decide what is acceptable in the marketplace based on the best science and public information available.”
But by being told the oils are “100% natural,” consumers can no longer make an informed decision as they are being misled.
Which reminds me of a great quote from Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser: “If they have to put the word ‘natural’ on a box to convince you, it probably isn’t.”
————————-
Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back, and research and policy director at Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group.

Comments (0)

Consumer Rights Victory as US Ends Opposition to GM Labeling Guidelines

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog,Food Policy & Politics

Tuesday, August 9th, 2011, 5:04 PM

Twenty Year Struggle Within Global Food Safety Body Ends with Consumer Rights Milestone
Move Clears Way for Greater Monitoring of the Effects of GM Organisms

Consumers International (CI) and its member organizations, including Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, celebrated victory today as regulators from more than 100 countries agreed on long overdue guidance on the labeling of genetically modified (GM) food.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission, made up of the world’s food safety regulatory agencies, has been laboring for two decades to come up with consensus guidance on this topic.
In a striking reversal of their previous position, on Tuesday, during the annual Codex summit in Geneva, the US delegation dropped its opposition to the GM labeling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.
The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labeling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade.
This will have immediate implications for consumers. Consumers International’s lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union, Dr. Michael Hansen, stated: “We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognizes that GM labeling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labelled – so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction.”
Edita Vilcapoma of the Peruvian consumer group ASPEC, representing Consumers International at the Codex meeting in Geneva, said: “Peru’s recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO. This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumer movement.”
The agreement also recognizes the enormous health monitoring benefits of giving consumers transparent information about the presence of GM foods. The labeling milestone is particularly welcomed by CI member organizations in Africa, who have been fighting on behalf of their consumers for the right to be informed about GM food.
Samuel Ochieng, President Emeritus of Consumers International and CEO of the Kenyan Consumer Information Network said: “While the agreement falls short of the consumer movement’s long-held demand for endorsement of mandatory GM food labeling, this is still a significant milestone for consumer rights. We congratulate Codex on agreeing on this guidance, which has been sought by consumers and regulators in African countries for nearly twenty years. This guidance is extremely good news for the worlds’ consumers who want to know what is in the foods on their plates”.

Note to Editors
Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organizations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp

Comments (0)

Indian Farmers in Crisis– Great Reporting on the Green Revolution

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog,Food Policy & Politics,Organic Food & Farming

Wednesday, April 22nd, 2009, 12:36 PM

Read/watch this two-part series by NPR, which illustrates the current crisis facing Indian farmers.

Veteran NPR journalist Daniel Zwerdling gives a brief history of the Green Revolution, which encouraged Indian farmers in the ’60′s and ’70′s to abandon traditional farming methods in favor of input-responsive seeds, that were high-yielding when combined with high levels of chemical use and heavy water irrigation.

According to Zwerdling, “Government studies show that farmers have pumped so much groundwater to irrigate their crops that the water table is dropping dramatically, as much as 3 feet every year… [So farmers] keep hiring the drilling company to come back to their fields, to bore the wells ever deeper…” The soil is being gradually destroyed by the drilling and salt levels. The costs of drilling, and remedying the damage that’s been done, is incredibly expensive– prohibitive, in fact, for many Indian farmers, who are already overwhelmed by their debt and are struggling to support their families.

Read the article and share your thoughts. You can find more resources in the Oakland Institute’s Voices from Africa report or in Vandana Shiva’s writings– both share examples for how we can build solutions in the wake of the Green Revolution.

–Deepa

Comments (0)

New Report Just Out on AGRA

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog,Hunger & Food Crisis

Thursday, March 5th, 2009, 8:47 PM

We highly recommend The Oakland Institute’s important new report, “Voices From Africa: African Farmers & Environmentalists Speak Out Against a New Green Revolution in Africa.”

Comments (0)

The World in 2101?

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog,Food Industry News & Trends,Food Policy & Politics,Hunger & Food Crisis,Organic Food & Farming

Thursday, February 26th, 2009, 2:13 PM

The WorldWatch Institute has published a new report which investigates an “imagined future:” State of the World 2009: Into a Warming World highlights the potential fate of the planet if scientists, consumers, producers, and politicians act quickly and effectively now, in 2009, to combat the energy and climate change crises.

According WorldWatch, “The questions addressed in the State of the World 2009 are many: how do we adapt- not just as communities and nations, but as a species-to the warming that is headed our way, no matter what we do now? How will the world deal with the fact that the climate burden will fall heaviest on countries whose contributions to climate change have been the most modest? And even as we struggle to adapt, how does society maintain focus on slashing emissions to a pale shadow of their current levels?”

The report selects specific challenges (land use, energy, emissions, etc.) and proposes innovative alternatives. Some of the Innovations highlighted in the Land Use section are:
>> In Parana, Brazil, farmers have developed organic management systems combined with no-till. No-till plots yielded a third more wheat and soybean than conventional plowed plots and reduced soil erosion by up to 90 percent. (p. 36)
>> In 2005, a Pennsylvania dairy farm invested $1.14 million in a project to process the manure from 800 cows, using a digester and a combined heat and power unit. Now the farm makes a profit using biogas to generate 120 kilowatt-hours of electricity to sell back to the local utility. (p. 41)
>> Both India and China have large national programs to revegetate millions of hectares of forest and grasslands-seen as investments to reduce poverty and protect watersheds. (p. 44)
>> In Morocco, 34 pastoral cooperatives with more than 8,000 members rehabilitated and manage some 450,000 hectares of grazing reserves. (p. 44)
>> In Rajasthan, India, community-led watershed restoration programs have reinstated more than 5,000 traditional johads (rainwater storage tanks) in over 1,000 villages. (p. 44)
>> Some countries are redirecting subsidy payments to agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services, some of which explicitly include carbon storage and emissions reduction. (p. 46)

If you’re interested in reading more, download chapters or purchase a copy of this critical report here.

– Deepa

Comments (0)

What Would Darwin Think?

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog

Monday, February 9th, 2009, 2:15 PM

Claire Hope Cummings penned a fascinating article for Beacon Broadside which questions how Charles Darwin would feel that the faith vs. reason argument has carried on and on, far past his lifetime, into a new century.

Religious conservative circles around the country push an agenda of “creationism” in public schools, reducing evolution to mere theory. Cummings discusses Darwin’s own delicate balance between science and religion, and questions how the faith vs. reason argument plays out in the world of food and technology (i.e. cloning, genetic modification of animals, gene harvesting, etc).

From reading this website and other resources, we know the potential health and energy repercussions of mixing technology and food production, but for many, the ethical question may be equally significant.

Read the article, and tell us your thoughts.

– Deepa

Comments (0)

The Attack on Organic Agriculture–or the more things change, the more they stay the same

Topics:
Biofuels,Biotechnology,Blog,Organic Food & Farming

Tuesday, January 27th, 2009, 3:07 PM

As the new year turned, and Obama’s transition team developed their plan for the agriculture team, George McGovern and Marshall Matz, both now on the board of the World Food Program, weighed in with an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, parroting many of the claims about industrial ag and its pseudo-benefits we’ve been hearing (and debunking) for years.

read their op-ed here and my response below. While my letter to the editor didn’t make it into print, one by George Naylor from the National Family Farming Coalition did.

Dear Editors:
Thank you for your coverage of the Agriculture Secretary nominee (“Agriculture’s next big challenge” January 4, 2009), but the authors mislead your readers about the real costs of the “commercial agriculture” they claim the new Secretary should celebrate.

Industrial agriculture will lessen–not improve–our ability to feed ourselves and foster sustainable rural communities, especially in the face of a climate unstable future. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, is proving to foster more resilient crops and to sequester greater levels of carbon in the soil.

The authors also claim that industrial agriculture is “key in our becoming less dependent on foreign oil,” while in reality this system of farming does the opposite: Because industrial agriculture is addicted to manmade fertilizers, which require significant natural gas to produce, we are increasingly dependent on imports from countries with natural gas reserves. Organic agriculture, on the other hand, releases us from our foreign oil dependence in the food sector by eliminating our addiction to petroleum-based chemicals and manmade fertilizer.

Finally, the authors perpetuate the myth that organic agriculture cannot feed the world, when new research, including a multi-year study from the University of Michigan, has shown that shifting toward organic agriculture can actually increase yields overall, while creating auxiliary benefits like cleaner water and safer fields for our farm workers and farmers.

Sincerely,
Anna Lappé
Oakland, California

Comments (0)

The Carbon Footprint of Your Orange Juice

Topics:
Biotechnology,Blog

Thursday, January 22nd, 2009, 3:51 PM

Today is O.J.s day: Got a note about friend Alissa Hamilton’s OJ book Squeezed and an alert that The Times just posted the findings of a PepsiCo research project on the emissions from producing America’s favorite breakfast drink.

Comments (0)

Round-Up Ready Sugar Beets to Make Your Mars Bar Sweet

Topics:
Biotechnology

Tuesday, August 5th, 2008, 11:24 AM

Blogger Rebekah Denn, of Devouring Seattle, dishes about Monsanto’s latest product: Round-up Ready sugar beets.

Denn calls on us, dear readers, to take a stand. Seven years ago beet seed vendors were ready to sell Roundup-ready beets to sugar-sweet companies like Hersey’s and Kelloggs, but fear of consumer revolt scared off the introduction of this genetically modified source for sugar crystals. Now producers like American Crystal Sugar think the consumer market has become complacent and used to the prevalence of biotech products in everything we eat.

If Monsanto rolls out modified beets, it will be the first new GMO product introduced to the market since genetically modified soybeans and corn entered the scene in the ’90s.

European countries do not allow GMOs to be sold, period. Kelloggs promises they will not market this new product to their European buyers, however here in the U.S. with our lack of GMO restrictions, our food is fair game. –Jeanne

Comments (0)

No-to-GMO: It’s Not Just for California Anymore

Topics:
Biotechnology

Friday, April 11th, 2008, 2:26 AM

Residents in Montville, Maine passed the nation’s first binding resolution (outside of California, that is) to ban the planting of genetically modified crops. Check out the news here.

Comments (0)