Month: July 2015

“A genetically engineered food is a plant or meat product that has had its DNA artificially altered in a laboratory by genes from other plants, animals, viruses, or bacteria, in order to produce foreign compounds in that food” (Label GMOs).
Recently the scare of genetically engineered organisms (GMO) has been gaining speed and popularity. Introduced in 1996, GMOs are here to stay, for better or for worse.
Scientists and farmers have assured consumers that they are creating “better” food, and by better they mean food that is herbicide tolerant and possessing the ability to yield its own pesticide (Down To Earth).
But there are some concerns that consumers are vocalizing. Mommy bloggers, liberals, and conservatives alike are banding together to bring about change, or at least some sort of enlightenment. Scientists have been giving the green light to continue the use of GMOs, but, at closer investigation, this seal of approval has become relatively one sided.
In 1974, there was strict regulations on experimentation with the preliminary form of GMOs by scientists who feared the effects behind genetic engineering. However, in 1984 the White House was able to regulate, along with the American Food and Drug Association (FDA), the biotechnology. Not much was said during this period, as GMOs were a relatively unknown and undiscussed issue. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) attempted to ban certain pesticides, they were eventually overruled by agricultural scientists and their supporters in Congress (Council on Foreign Relations).
This type of strong-arming for health and safety reviews still occurs and is actually supplied by the very companies who are seeking approval for their GMO products. This is a serious conflict of interest which begs the question as to how much validity these statements that “GMOs are harmless” posses (Down To Earth). This blurring of lines is one reason that so many people are confused regarding what they should believe in the GMO debate.
The fact of the matter is that the health risks behind GMOs are unknown. There has not been enough time to draw conclusive evidence whether GMOs are harmful or not. However the studies that have been conducted on animals does not look promising.
The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) believes that GM foods can be doing long-term damage to the human form. “The AAEM reported that several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,’ including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system” (Institute for Responsible Technology).
As studies continue to focus on animals being subjected to GMOs, even more problematic findings arise, such as third generation hamsters becoming infertile. Which may sound trite, but this could be an issue humans may face decades from now. And unlike drug regulations, there have been no human clinical trials for GM foods. So, at best, the studies that have been evaluated are only surface level.
Forty percent of the world’s population already label genetically engineered foods, including the entire European Union (Label GMOs). What is even more interesting is that the companies that are fighting so hard to ban GMO labeling are submitting to the EU’s rules, and either label or provide non-GM enhanced products.
Whether or not there are risks involved with consuming GM products, it is important for people to be informed about what they ingest. There never used to be nutrition labels or calories listed on products, but since they have been integrated it has been a big help for nutritionists and regular individuals.
However there is a flipside to the argument, which is “no” to GMO labeling.
Scientist and professor, Kevin Folta presented a slide which shows the difference between the genetic makeup of table sugar. An organically grown sugar beet was compared to a glyphosate-resistant sugar beet (GM food), and the end results were the same. Neither of their genetic makeup was different even though the sugar beet was a GMO (Kevin Folta).
The Washington Post had a special section back in 2013 where Tamar Haspel, a nutrition expert who has been writing and researching nutrition for the past 15 years, discussed the fact and fiction behind GMOs. “There is no mainstream scientific evidence showing that foods containing GMOs are any more or less harmful for people to consume than anything else in the supermarket” (Washington Post).
What’s more toxic than GMOs is the conspiracy and fear behind them. Haspel acknowledges that there are flaws behind the organizations who whole-heartedly claim that there is zero concern in relation to GMOS, but she is also quick to point out that those who are avid advocates against GMOs are just as harmful. She encourages an impartiality test to be used by consumers. When one is researching the truth behind GMOs it is a red flag if an argument is just one sided, chances are that this person is a “dog” — whether financial or ideological — in the GMO fight (Haspel).
Worrying about unknown risks is is seen as unproductive by certain scientists, as there is always a risk that you’ll get salmonella or fall victim to a car accident. Worrying over food that the FDA has already deemed safe is “futile,” and for those that are so concerned there is a solution: buy organic. Although these foods are more expensive, people can splurge the extra dollars if it gives them a peace of mind (Science Line). People argue that it is pointless and an unnecessary cost to label items as “GMO” since the foods that are missing these GM traits have already been flagged.
Since many people are uneducated with the GMO argument, labeling GM products could lead to hysteria.
Journalist Katherine Foley points out that as scientists continue to study GMOs and more factual and concrete information becomes available to the public there still should not be GMO labeling. She points to the denial of the climate change argument, which she believes if it has taught people anything, it is that we are no where close to ready for knowledge on that scale (Science Line). A common sentiments is that there is virtually no reason for people to be concerned over inconclusive evidence because, whether it is GMO or non-GMO, there will be its own variable type risks.
The world’s population is rapidly growing with one birth occurring every eight seconds, balanced against one death every 13 seconds, therefore providing a net gain of one person every twelve seconds (Census). Basically the births are outweighing the deaths on a rapidly growing scale. An argument for GM is that it could potentially assist in supplying food to the starving. Although there must be room for caution, to completely disregard a rather promising solution would be, as the editors of the Washington Post put it, “self-indulgent” (Washington Post).
The United States government has acknowledged that Americans throw about 40% of perfectly good food away due to slight imperfections that lead people to believe the food is inedible or just plain “gross.” Okanagan Specialty Fruits received the green light to produce genetically modified seeds that would essentially stop apples from browning when they are sliced or bruised. This is not to say they would never spoil, but the typical unfounded reasons for tossing an apple would be eliminated (United States Department of Agriculture).
The only answer to the GMO debate is research and time. Time will tell the true effects, but when one looks to more biased journals it appears that individuals can either be over cautious or accept the “truth” that is presented to them.  The chances that GMOs may be providing genetic abnormalities is slim, but if true, the consequences can be severe. However, just laying out in the sun for an hour or getting on the highway can result in the same if not greater consequences.
Technically, people have been eating GMOs for thousands of years, ever since farmers discovered the trick of selectively breeding crops to have certain traits. However with science, more precise modifications are being made (National Geographic).
Whether or not someone agrees with GMOs there’s a simple solution until GMO labels are created: buy non-gmo labeled foods. GMOs are not going anywhere so it is time to get used to that little green label that has begun to pop up on so many bags. If you do not see it, then you can infer that somewhere along the line a gene has been changed one way or the other.

The government’s role in obesity should be straightforward. Agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report obesity statistics, the United States Department of Agriculture issues nutritional guidelines and offers practical guidance to consumers on how to put together a healthy plate and balance caloric intake. Even first lady Michelle Obama is involved in shaping how American school children eat.

With all the interventions, statistical analyses, recommendations, and regulations, you might assume that the obesity rates in America have fallen steadily over the years.

To the contrary, obesity rates have increased exponentially between 1970 and 2013. Recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicate that more adults are obese, meaning they have a BMI of at least 30, than are simply overweight, with a BMI between 25.0 and 29.9. This increase is concerning because obesity is associated with numerous health problems from heart disease to some cancers.

Clearly the current government practices and recommendations are not positively impacting the war on obesity. However, even though there are more interventions and regulations now than in the past, I do not believe the government has caused our current obesity crisis. Instead, the government’s role is ill defined, the message is muddled, and the message of healthy eating is not being heard or supported on a local level.  

Does this mean that the government is doing more harm than good or is the government focusing on the wrong interventions and muddling the message?

In examining this topic, I discovered that when the government issues official recommendations, whole industries respond.

Food manufacturers change packaging to show consumers that their foods contain the latest recommended ingredient, marketing companies respond by featuring one food over another, and previously recommended foods such as bread, are suddenly shunned.

The government’s official nutrition guidelines, called the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, are revised every five years. Over the years the guidelines have become more detailed and foods rise and fall in popularity. For example, the 2015 guidelines will recommend Americans eat fewer meat products and more vegetables. Older guidelines recommended consuming a higher percentage of carbohydrates than the current guidelines recommend.

The shifting nutritional guidelines make it difficult for consumers to know for certain what foods to consume and what foods to avoid. If indeed, consumers read the guidelines at all. I asked a group of my friends if they knew the government issued nutritional guidelines every five years and of 12 people, not a single one did. And not one knew what agency issued them or what the guidelines were called.

From the mid-1950s to the early 1990s, the government simply broke down foods into four groups: Cereals and Breads, Meat, Vegetables and Fruits, and Milk. Oils, sauces, and jellies were classified as “other.”

The obesity rates were under 15 percent in all reporting states during the mid to late 1980s, according to information from the CDC.

In 1992, with the introduction of the food pyramid and later the food plate called MyPlate, the obesity rates began to climb and have not slowed down.

Some Americans are understandably confused as to what foods are actually good for health and what foods can help with weight control. In speaking at conventions, counseling clients on food choices, and responding to questions via email, I have spoken to hundreds of people struggling with their weight.

In many cases, there is a high level of confusion on what foods should be eaten and what foods should be avoided. I can see where the confusion comes from. The government currently recommends 8 ounces of grains each day but a popular diet, the Paleo diet, shuns grains completely.

Who is the consumer to believe?

A poll conducted by the The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Research in 2012 found that most Americans feel that more governmental intervention in the form of regulations and taxes is not necessary. The infamous attempt by Governor Michael Bloomberg to regulate drink sizes in New York backfired and obesity rates did not budge.

Although the government recommendations are clearly not impacting obesity rates, are they in fact hurting the fight against obesity? I would have to say no. Even though the shifting nutritional guidelines are confusing, the bottom line is that the government cannot regulate individual choice even if they so desire.  

Well, unless you believe that the total governmental control scenarios painted in George Orwell’s famous book “1984” could come to pass. In that book, the government controlled every aspect of a person’s life including their food choices. Since that is unlikely to ever happen, individuals are ultimately responsible for their food choices.

Where the government can help is in providing tax incentives to grocery stores that open in areas that are primarily populated by lower income people without access to transportation or healthy food options. The government calls these areas “food deserts,” and in places where access to healthy food is limited, obesity rates are higher. (USA.gov)

Education is another way the government can use its resources to reverse the tide of obesity. When people truly understand the impact their food choices have on their health and their weight, they have more of an incentive to make different choices.

For example, I was speaking at an event in Pennsylvania one afternoon and after I finished a woman stood up and told me that no one had ever really explained why fast food and frozen dinners were not good for her family. Later that day I ran into her at one of the booths and she again thanked me for my talk. She was a well-educated woman who honestly did not understand the impact food has on health. She just fed her family whatever was easy and tasted good to them without considering the nutritional value.

She is not alone.

Education programs in schools, through community centers, at farmer’s markets, and during community wide events could make a difference in obesity rates. Your tax dollars are much better spent educating people in small groups or one-on-one than spending millions of dollars on nutritional guidelines that are sometimes influenced by lobbyists and special interest groups. (FoodPolitics)

A third way the government can use its vast resources to help the obesity crisis is to offer incentives to farmers who make their produce available to local customers at farmer’s markets, roadside stands, or donate food to community outreach centers.  Local food growers can be paid to go into neighborhoods and establish community gardens and pass on their knowledge of gardening and healthy eating.

The government has not caused the obesity crisis and cannot fix it. However, governmental resources can be used in a smart, deliberate way to educate the public, encourage grocery stores to open shop in “food desert” areas, and give incentives to farmers who sell or donate their produce locally.

Those strategies, in combination with individual accountability, can finally put America on a path back to the time when the majority of Americans lived their lives at a healthy weight.