Food for Thought . . .

I had trouble posting this last night.  I crashed something . . . after a night's sleep and morning errands, this seems a little long and maybe even a little too soapy.  But I'm posting it anyway, if for no better reason than I'm simply not starting over. (I'd just get all fired up again!!!) 

So here she blows.

from The Doomsday Vault:

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed.  Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.-Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

I have been overwhelmed over the past few days with some really astonishing political events
occurring here in Michigan. It’s distracted me from my work here; however, some things are so
broad in their reach that you just have to enter the fray. I’ve got my Thomas Paine on, I’ve got
my Patrick Henry on, I’ve got my Samuel Adams on! So even though I had more to cover on the
idea of the non-toxic home environment, I’m going to shift into an entirely different area that’s
really gotten under my skin this week.

Freedom and Liberty. And food.

I’m feeling a touch nostalgic. Could just be that I’m just getting older. But I fear that for many
of us, with the changes occurring at such a pace, we’ll never be able to keep up with them,
especially while we’re consumed with such things as our kids’ health, keeping our homes, finding jobs. Let’s not let the crisis atmosphere prompt us to sacrifice important rights and liberties. This is our children’s world. We mustn’t trade it for a few creature comforts. “Hey, honey. Sorry about your inheritance. I traded it for a cheeseburger.”

If we are what we eat, then we should care a lot about what we’re eating. And where it comes from. My proposition for today is that we have the right to know what we’re eating. And that we have the responsibility to find out - if not for ourselves, then for our kids. A wealth of evidence indicates that their young, developing bodies are so much more vulnerable than ours.

I’m homesick. I’m worried about the direction we’ve taken. I’m concerned about these
children’s health epidemics. And I’m sad about . . . farms. And food. So let me just say right off the bat that if I’m missing the mark here, you farmers, please weigh in. Teach us what we need to know.  This isn't an indictment of farming in America - it's an indictment of factory farming everywhere.

I grew up in Northeast Missouri. Dirt and gravel bordered on either side by crops marked with
signs that read “Kent” were our roads. (I remember wondering, as a young girl, who this guy Kent was.) We shared those single-lane roads with all manner of farm machinery. The friendly farmer behind the wheel would always drive off to the side and wave you around when it was clear. Sometimes the Halls’ pigs would get out of the fence in our back yard and raid my mom’s garden, in spite of all the potato peels and various appetizing offal we supplied them with in the days before trash collection and sink disposals. Or if the Halls had the cows back there, we’d worry about the big intimidating bull getting out (after all, the pigs did.) Across the street were more cows. Up the hill, corn. Driving down a country road on a summer day, even with the sweltering heat and no air conditioning, the smell of the hog farms could force those windows right up. I wasn’t a farm kid. I was a “town kid.” But almost everyone I knew farmed.

When I moved back to Missouri, the local hot issue in the spring of 2008, when baby Rori was born, was whether a CAFO (concentrated animal feeding operation) could be moved onto the land next to a guy’s farm while he was overseas serving in the war. The odors from that CAFO and the other attendant pollution would render his home unmarketable and possibly uninhabitable. I think he lost that battle and I think the CAFO went in. It’s a completely different system from the farms of my youth.

These highly efficient operations produce the great majority of our meat. They are not farms.
They are factories.

Food . . . It’s so basic. Everyone’s gotta eat. Rich, poor, middle class . . .
we all eat. Seems that nowadays, though, food isn’t really as basic as we’d like to think. In fact, it’s downright complicated.

This week, I want all of you to watch a wonderful documentary entitled “Food, Inc."  You
can buy it or rent it. If you go to http://www.netflix.com/ you can sign up for a free 30-day trial
and watch the movie instantly on your computer or game system. Or you can wait for
the DVD to come in the mail. It starts off a little slow unless you’re already a fan of Michael
Pollan, but it sucks you in. If you’re not misty by the time the credits roll and the
Boss sings the classic “This Land Is Your Land,” you need to have yourself
checked out.

The movie really focuses on two aspects of commercial farming - the CAFO and the genetically-modified crop movement. Genetically-modified organisms or GMOs, they are called.  I know that this will sound like paranoia to some: why not put science to work in solving world hunger? How can that be bad? What’s so wrong with genetically-modified crops? A couple of things. 
       
They require and tolerate more pesticides and herbicides than non-genetically modified
crops. They were created to withstand those chemicals (which are manufactured by the
same folks making the GM crops. Interesting.) What’s more is that these crops have
never been proven safe for either humans and other animals or the planet. We don’t
know their nutritional impact and we know that they increase our toxicity burden. [In
fact, I can’t think of the guy’s name right now and maybe he’s in the movie, but after the
(industry-sponsored) experts claimed the data showed GMOs safe for animals, this guy
reviewed the data and said that it showed the exact opposite - multiple organ failure in the
animals fed a GMO diet. Is that any worse than, well . . . not eating?]

It’s an odd arrangement when a chemical company owns an entire food,
which they’ve genetically altered to withstand astonishing amounts of
poisons so that they can pour more poisons onto the plants, poisons that
they also manufacture and poisons that we will put into our bodies right
along with the food. Perhaps the upside is that, knowing the genetic
code of the food and the chemical composition of the chemicals, they’ll
be in a prime position to formulate a cure for all of the diseases we
get from eating the stuff. Sounds like a sure thing for the financial security of
Monsanto. Funny how they’re trying to sell us on the benefits that we’ll accrue. I’m just
not seeing it.

So you’d like to be prudent, adopt a wait-and-see-because-I'm-not-a-lab-rat approach, avoid GMOs until you know that they’re safe? Well . . . good luck with that one. It's not as easy as you would immediately expect. You see, they’re not necessarily labeled as such. Some producers will label their product as not containing GMOs, and USDA Organic-labeled food doesn't use GMOs. That’s about as close as you can get. There is a shopping guide put together by the True Food Network (see links at left) if you’re interested in avoiding these GMOs. I’m truly alarmed that these new products of questionable safety have entered our market so quietly, so nonchalantly. But maybe I’m just easily alarmed.

Or maybe it’s that there’s much that’s alarming.

Is it just me, or is this entire patented food product a really scary concept?

No, I’m afraid it’s not just me. Farmers were scared right off of the farms. This one
strikes close to home to me. Years back, my sister and her husband were crop farmers.
Now they don't grow crops.  And that’s sad, because I kinda liked the notion of my food grown lovingly by a human being whose family tilled this very land since the Civil War or so. Is that hokey?

With my law background, there’s one particular aspect to the food industry that’s
especially perplexing and offensive to me. But first, I want to backtrack to the quote
I started with today. Remember those three stages of truth? Right now we are in
Schopenhauer’s first stage of truth - the ridicule stage. Talk to anyone about the
questionable food habits of Americans and unless you’re talking about obesity, you’ll
get some pretty strange looks. And eye rolls. But we are quickly approaching
the second, the “violent opposition” phase - and the food disparagement
laws are evidence of that.

In "Food, Inc.," you’ll hear about the most famous example of food disparagement litigation. 
Remember when Oprah was slapped with a lawsuit, after a few offhand comments
made on her show during the mad cow disease scare? The Texas Cattlemen took her
to court over those remarks and while she prevailed in the end, it required six years’
effort. And expense. What’s odd about these laws is that . . . they’re unnecessary and
redundant.

Most states already prohibit the tortious interference with another’s
business interests and the libel and slander of a business or its product. Libel and
slander generally require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant made knowingly false
statements. The defendant responds to the complaint with evidence that the statements
were true (if they were made, that is.) These aren’t new ideas - they’re rather arcane,
actually, going back to the days when one couldn’t insult a woman’s purity without being
challenged to a duel. So why do we need food disparagement laws?

Never doubt the power of money to corrupt. What we have here is a powerful lobby’s
influence in creating an entirely new standard of proof for an old tort. It’s easier
for the plaintiff to prove his case now because the definition of “knowingly false” is
defined as “not supported by reliable scientific data.” Think about that one. The
industries have all of the data! Our government encourages them to produce it. The
defendant can present his own data, but industry will always have bigger guns (and more
money to litigate these claims to their conclusion.) So the data, even at its collection
stage, is created to advance the industry’s interests - it’s skewed to promote the product
and deflect liability. (Think BP and the Gulf oil spill. Who did the research? BP. That’s
how it’s done.) These laws have a chilling effect on the free flow of information. So
much for the free market.

I hope we’ll get a different point of view from the farmers out there. As with most
things, there are two sides to the story, and I assume there are examples in which the law
brought someone somewhere some much-needed justice (and damages.) However, I’m
mostly curious to know why traditional tort law couldn’t handle these cases.

So what does ANY of this have to do with kids and their diseases? Well . . . Kids are
more vulnerable to toxicity. Kids are more vulnerable to nutritional deficiency. Their
bodies at critical stages of development are probably at a greater risk than adult bodies
are with regard to any unforeseen problems that GMO foods might bring. Eastern
medicine promotes the idea that the condition of the “soil” (the body) is the
key to whether a “seed” (disease) will take root. If this concept holds one
grain of truth, then all of this matters, and matters very much. What we eat
matters more than we seem to grasp. And we don’t even know how bad what we’re eating really is.

You may have guessed already that I am a huge fan of Michael Pollan. His books
changed everything I think about food (his and Alicia Silverstone’s, although I am not
vegan) even before I came across the movie we’ve been talking about. Even with
his breathtaking knowledge of food, he offers the most simple of advice: at the end
of his book, In Defense of Food , he suggests that we should all just eat more
vegetables. Period. We shouldn‘t get caught up in the magical properties of the
superfood of the moment, especially considering how often we’ve fallen for it only
to find out later that they were mistaken. (He offers margarine and trans fats by way
of example.) He prefers organic food but says a traditionally-farmed apple can beat up
a Hostess apple pie all the way home, because even chock-full of pesticides the apple
still has plenty to offer.. I like his approach. How many of us have been turned off by
snobbery, absolutists, purists? I have no intention of ever being vegan. I grew up where
the animals in the back yard were next month's meal.  I don’t have to go vegan to change my diet for the better. Even if I only eat one veggie a day, if I wasn’t eating any before I’ve made a huge improvement. And that’s how we make the changes that will change everything.

The challenge for us is to start caring, if you haven’t already, about the quality of our food,
no matter how inconvenient that actually is. (They don’t call them “convenience foods” for
nothing, right?) Now that you know what genetically-modified crops are if you didn’t before, you call your congressmen about it. The United States has already allowed Monsanto to patent Roundup-Ready soybeans, and the trend isn’t stopping any time soon. Corn, sugar beets . . . One by one, our food staples (or at least the staples of standard processed fare) will be the property of a handful of companies. This is a revolutionary concept, and I don’t mean in a good way (unless you‘re one of those companies.)

(Is it just me or is the only food widely-researched and touted as being anti-cancer SOY? Am I wrong to be skeptical of that?  I think I remember seeing that 98% of our soybeans are from Monsanto . . .)

Here’s another thought. It’s a doomsday thought and I apologize, but still . . . has anyone
read that bananas will be extinct soon? The theory underlying this assertion is that because
everyone is raising the same kind of banana, one course of any banana blight could wipe
out what’s left of the species. And what that has to do with GMOs is that, if patents put
competitors - namely, heritage strains - out of business, then those crops are at risk as
well. You can’t control pollen. The GMOs are impregnating heritage strains.

Imagine if rice went extinct.

Did you ever hear about the study in which monarch butterflies literally dropped dead from the pollen of certain GMO corn? There’s some debate whether the study was reliable enough to mean anything. Guess I’m just not sure why we’re being fed the stuff, without our knowledge, if there’s any question whatsoever.

But wait, there’s more.

I ran across an article on genetically-modified salmon, which is - as far as I know -
the first time a living, breathing critter has been patented for food. (We didn’t eat
Dolly.) I’ve added the link here. It’s not long . . . If you don’t choose to read it, that’s okay.
If you don’t, at least recognize that the same thing that’s happened to farmers will happen to
fishermen. And we’ve crossed over a significant line once we’re not only patenting live plants
but also live animals. The slippery slope . . . The future is here, folks. And it’s kinda scary.
Here’s the link:
http://trusted.md/blog/vreni_gurd/2010/10/09/genetically_modified_salmon_on_your_dinner_table_soon#axzz1GsQDiaGZ

Paging Dr. Malcolm . . .

What ever happened to due caution? That’s what I want to know. Before we even let people eat
this stuff, certainly before we allow this stuff to drive the other genetic compositions of the stuff
into extinction - wouldn’t it be prudent to know more? Didn’t anyone read Jurassic Park? See
the movie, perhaps?

Right now the FDA and the USDA are doing very little that isn’t helpful to the industry. That
industry people hold government jobs in these departments isn’t necessarily suspect - the
government hires people with the expertise - until you see just how slanted the whole system is toward industry. The federal government is proposing significant cuts to both the FDA and USDA in the budget. Maybe someone figured out that both have gone too native, identifying so closely with the interests of the groups that they were formed to police, that they've outlived their usefulness.  Maybe someone else wants to cut them out of the game before the wake-up call
rings in. I don’t know. The reality is that it’s our responsibility. The government does not
protect us from the market forces of greed. Let the buyer beware: your food is not all
it’s cracked up to be.

This is all very overwhelming and sometimes skepticism is just easier, isn't it?  You get to sound smart and cynical and do nothing at all whatsoever. Some would call that choice a "cop-out."  But sometimes you just wish you could ignore all of this, go back to the HotPockets and the simple life.  As the parents of sick kids, you long ago abandoned the life of oblivion, didn't you?  Not by choice, but by chance.  Still . . . you do have options.  Options to improve your child's chances, and options to improve the odds for every other child that will someday inherit this earth and this system.  So . . . what can we do now, today? Every day? Well, we start with what’s very doable.

I like to think of it as having short-term and long-term goals. That way I can see progress. Think of it as a cross-county roadtrip to California, carefully planned to hit every amazing byway, natural wonder, and roadside attraction along the way.  The long-term goal is to bring truth and choice back to the supermarket. The short-term, though, is to make better choices in daily life. Every single meal is an opportunity. Even without the food budget to buy 100% organic food, there is much you can do.

Eat local. Try your farmer’s market. Ask how it’s made or how it’s grown. Not
just whether they use pesticides, but when? Before or after the fruit appears? How
often, twice or thirteen times? What kind, manure? Or a fourteen-syllable chemical
formulation that doesn’t exist anywhere in the natural world? And if you don’t have
time to go to the farmer’s market, or you don’t have much money to spend, just buy real
food. Like apples. (Wash them.)

When you buy animal products, remember that they too absorb pesticides. It’s in the food they eat and we’re all familiar with the concept that toxins accumulate at the top of the food chain. (Eagles, anyone?)(Oh, we're the eagles.)  Know what they are eating. Look for grass-fed product. (Not that I’m disparaging the other kind.) (How do local growers and organic farmers sell their products if they can’t claim that the product is superior? Wouldn’t that necessarily require some disparagement of the conventionally-grown varieties? Just sayin'.)

There is some truth to that old saying, “you are what you eat.”
“Let food be thy medicine, and thy medicine be thy food.”
This is not new stuff. It’s wise and time-honored. And it is absolutely without risk, to eat healthy
food rather than take a chance with processed substitutes. Or at least change the ratio of your
real food vs. processed food consumption. No downside. Every day is an opportunity to be kind
to yourself and your loved ones just by making better choices. While eating healthy and true
food is no guarantee against disease, it does fortify your body, come what may. We are made in a most wonderful way, to adapt and withstand and defend, to learn and remember - in return, all our bodies ask of us is that we feed them.

Preferably food.

Real food.

I encourage you to click on the link at the left side of the this page for the Center for Food Safety. On their homepage along the right margin is a box labeled “Take Action.” Spend a minute or two shipping a couple of petition signatures and emails to your representatives.

In addition, if you click on the link for Hungry for Change, you’ll see a set of tabs across the top. In the drop-down menu for “Get Involved,” you’ll see a “take action” option that will give you some simple ideas on how to implement your new information, if it’s actually new to you, or perhaps some ideas you hadn’t thought of already if you knew all of this stuff. (I like the way it reads like a checklist.)

The ideas printed on the screen as Bruce sings at the end of "Food, Inc." are pretty good, too.

That is, if you can read them through misty eyes.