A small bowl of porridge each day could be the key to a long and healthy life, after a major study by Harvard University found that whole grains reduce the risk of dying from heart disease.
Although whole grains are widely believed to be beneficial for health it is the first research to look at whether they have a long-term impact on lifespan.
Researchers followed more than 100,000 people for more than 14 years monitoring their diets and health outcomes.
Everyone involved in the study was healthy in 1984 when they enrolled, but when they were followed up in 2010 more than 26,000 had died.
However those who ate the most whole grains, such as porridge, brown rice, corn and quinoa seemed protected from many illnesses and particularly heart disease.
Oats are already the breakfast of choice for many athletes and also for dieters, who find the high fibre levels give them energy for longer.
But scientists found that for each ounce (28g) of whole grains eaten a day – the equivalent of a small bowl of porridge – the risk of all death was reduced by five per cent and heart deaths by 9 per cent.
“These findings further support current dietary guidelines that recommend increasing whole-grain consumption,” said lead author Dr Hongyu Wu of Harvard School of Public Health.
“They also provide promising evidence that suggests a diet enriched with whole grains may confer benefits towards extended life expectancy.”
The findings remained even when allowing for different ages, smoking, body mass index and physical activity.
Whole grains, where the bran and germ remain, contain 25 per cent more protein than refined grains, such as those that make white flour, pasta and white rice.
Previous studies have shown that whole grains can boost bone mineral density, lower blood pressure, promote healthy gut bacteria and reduce the risk of diabetes. One particular fibre found only in oats – called beta-glucan – has been found to lower cholesterol which can help to protect against heart disease. A bioactive compound called avenanthramide is also thought to stop fat forming in the arteries, preventing heart attacks and strokes.
Whole grains are also widely recommended in many dietary guidelines because they contain high levels of nutrients like zinc, copper, manganese, iron and thiamine. They are also believed to boost levels of antioxidants which combat free-radicals.
The new research suggests that if more people switched to whole grains, thousands of lives could be saved each year. Coronary heart disease is Britain’s biggest killer, responsible for around 73,000 deaths in the UK each year. Around 2.3 million people are living with the condition and one in six men and one in 10 women will die from the disease.
Health experts said the study proved that whole grains were beneficial to health
Victoria Taylor, Senior Dietician at the British Heart Foundation, said: “This is an interesting study and reinforces existing dietary recommendations to eat more foods high in fibre.
“People with a higher intake of whole grains also tended to have a healthier overall lifestyle and diet so it might not be the whole grains alone that are having the benefit in relation to cardiovascular disease.
“But at this time of year when we are all making resolutions to eat better, switching to whole-grain versions of bread, breakfast cereals, pasta and rice is a simple change to make.”
The U.S. dietary guidelines determine what foods will be served in feeding assistance programs that touch 1 in 4 Americans every month, and have great impact on the health of the U.S. public as a whole
By restricting healthy fat, the 2015 guidelines end up having to include higher amounts of refined grains, because those foods are fortified with nutrients you’d typically get from fattier foods
Factors that undermine the ability to create science-based policy include catering to industry interests, and protecting professional investments and reputations
May 22, 2016
By Dr. Mercola
The 2015-2020 U.S. Dietary Guidelines were recently published,1 and while they include some positive changes, they still contain serious flaws as well. In this interview, Nina Teicholz reviews a number of them—a task for which she is particularly suited, considering she’s read the entire 571-page guidance report.
So, why should you care about the U.S. dietary guidelines? “They don’t affect me,” you might think.
“Here’s why they matter,” Teicholz says. “They determine what foods are in the feeding assistance programs run by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) that touch 1 in 4 Americans every month.
Those include the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) (for many people the food that their kids are getting at school), programs for the elderly, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)...and military rations.”
Dietary Guidelines Dictate What Many Americans Eat Every Day
So while you may not peruse the dietary guidelines to influence your own eating habits, they end up directly influencing the diets of many Americans, including those with the least means to take control over their own food choices, such as those depending on food programs for their daily meals.
Moreover, when you go to your doctor, your nutritionist or dietician, the nutritional recommendations you’ll get are largely based on the dietary guidelines. If following the guidelines increases your risk of health problems, then seeking professional guidance certainly doesn’t do much good.
The guidelines even have international ramifications, as nations that don’t have the resources and scientific expertise to duplicate the process simply model their own guidance after the U.S.
The rest of the world really looks to the United States as a leader in this area, even though it’s readily apparent that the guidelines must be seriously flawed in some way, since they don’t produce very good results.
Even international organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) follow, to a large extent, the nutritional guidance developed by the U.S.
How U.S. Dietary Guidelines Gave Rise to the Obesity Epidemic
The dietary guidelines were launched in 1980. The first guidelines were actually written by a single Senate staffer who just so happened to be heavily influenced by certain scientists, and this first edition laid the groundwork for what has turned into decades of flawed advice.
Nowadays, an expert panel of about 14 members is convened every five years to review the latest evidence and make recommendations about what should remain and what needs to be changed. Statistics reveal just how influential these guidelines actually are.
In 1965, Americans ate about 40 percent of their calories as carbohydrates and another 40 percent of their calories came from fat.
The original guidelines issued in 1980 called for a diet lower in fat and higher in carbohydrates, and by 2010, Americans had indeed brought their fat consumption down below 35 percent, and increased carbohydrates to 55 to 65 percent.
The basic advice to eat more carbs has been followed ever since. Now granted, you need carbs. But not all carbohydrates are equal. Fiber-rich carbs (mostly vegetables), are essential for good health because they break down into short-chain fatty acids in your gut, which helps make ketones and nourish your body.
They also serve as fuel for beneficial bacteria in your colon. But most people don’t eat vegetables; they eat processed carbs like grains, pasta, rice, potatoes and other starchy vegetables.
As shown in the following graph,2 fruit and vegetable consumption is trailing far behind grains, having increased only slightly since 1970, whereas grain consumption has seen the largest increase.
Fiber Versus Non-Fiber Carbs — An Important Distinction That Can Improve Your Health
I believe most people benefit by restricting the net carbs to less than 50 grams per day (i.e. total carbs minus fiber). Subtract the fiber from the total carbs, and that’s your total non-fiber carbs.
For most people, it would be a good idea to limit that to 50 grams a day. If you exercise a lot and are particularly active, you might be able to increase it to 100 grams.
Ultimately, whether it’s whole grain, refined grain, or sugar, it boils down to the same question: Does it contain fiber, and if so how much? This is the distinction that needs to be made, because until you sufficiently restrict net carbs, you’re unlikely to see a change in health outcomes.
“The one point to understand here is that there’s a large body of science showing that restricting total carbohydrates is an effective way to fight obesity, diabetes, and heart disease,” Teicholz says.
“Excessive carbohydrates, if you have too many net carbohydrates and too little fat, that diet seems to worsen heart disease risk factors. The shifting away from fat to carbohydrates over the last three and a half decades is plausibly what has provoked obesity and diabetes.
In fact, there’s a very disturbing chart that shows obesity rates in America being relatively flat and low. In the 1980’s (when the dietary guidelines came out), they just shoot up. You could say 1980 was really the beginning of the obesity epidemic, and thereafter the diabetes epidemic began. There’s a plausible correlation there to suggest that the dietary guidelines actually cause those nutrition-related conditions.”
Two Realities That Undermine the Ability to Create Science-Based Policy
Ideally, policy should be based on the best possible science. Today, the medical literature tells us that the low-fat diet has consistently been proven ineffective. There are good clinical trials and metanalyses that show saturated fats are unlikely to cause heart disease.
So why don’t the dietary guideline committees review that evidence and change their recommendations accordingly? Teicholz believes there are two major explanations for this:
1.There are major industry interests at stake. The guidelines are part of the USDA, and part of the USDA’s mission is to promote agriculture. At the same time, they have a mandate to tell people to eat less of some foods and more of others. Those two mandates conflict.
The food and agricultural industries also have the ability to influence the guidelines. As it stands, the industries benefitting from the guidelines include makers of carbohydrate-based foods, as well as the corn and soy industries, as corn and soybean oil are used in most processed foods.
The guidelines, which call for avoiding saturated fats, have led to a 91 percent increase in unsaturated fat consumption (mainly vegetables oils) over the past three decades. According to Teicholz: “The manufacturers of those are huge corporations: ADM, Unilever, Monsanto, and Bunge, and they clearly work closely with the scientists who are most influential over the guidelines.”
2.Another major factor that keeps the guidelines from changing is the professional investment that has grown out of the advice. Entire careers are at stake, should a guideline be admitted wrong and altered too dramatically.
“Many institutions have invested in this particular hypothesis about what makes people healthy,” Teicholz says. “The entire federal government invested in this hypothesis about what makes people healthy. The American Heart Association (AHA).
These giant institutions cannot be seen as flip-flopping on their public. They can’t be wrong. That prevents backing out of any advice that might be flawed. When they do, they’re really called out on it as they shouldn’t be. That’s embarrassing and difficult, and ultimately erodes the public’s confidence in our institutions.”
Contradictions and Scientifically Weak Advice Abounds
The report from the expert panel is 571 pages long. Teicholz actually read the entire report, and wrote an article about her findings for the BMJ last year.3 She notes the panel report contains a number of contradictions and recommendations that aren’t supported by the actual evidence. “It was very disappointing to see that this was the document that was guiding our national policy,” she says. Her article sparked a great deal of controversy—so much so the BMJ eventually retracted it.
“This article [was] the first high-level critique of the way the science is reviewed for the dietary guidelines and it makes a number of points,” Teicholz says. “It says that some of these reviews did not happen in a systematic way. They have their own system within the USDA called the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL), which is supposed to do systematic reviews of the literature.
On a number of key topics, they did not use the Nutrition Evidence Library... including on unsaturated fats where there’s been a tremendous amount of new research in the last five years, and yet they did not do a systematic review of that literature. In quite a few cases, recommendations are based on what’s called the Grade III inconclusive evidence. There are three grades that they give evidence to judge its quality – Grade I, II, and III for available evidence.
There are a number of recommendations – including the vegetarian diet – based on what they consider to be Grade III evidence, which seems to be problematic to me. They are not supposed to, according to their own procedures, make recommendations based on such weak evidence. Probably one of the more controversial parts of the article was that I talked about what kinds of bias might have entered into the report.”
Strangely enough, committee members are not required to reveal their conflict of interest, which in and of itself raises questions. Despite bringing forth a number of important concerns, her article raised many angry and defensive responses. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), which is closely allied with the government, got more than 170 scientists to sign a letter asking for a retraction of the article, based on 11 points they consider to be grievous flaws.4
“It does seem to be an effort to try to silence this article, a kind of censorship to prevent these issues from being discussed and debated as they should,” Teicholz says.
“The main point is that the dietary guidelines are clearly not working...The nicest thing you can say is that they have failed to fight obesity and diabetes. The meanest thing you could say is that they caused those conditions. The truth has to be somewhere in that range of possibilities...Scientists in this field ought to be curious. Why aren’t the guidelines working? Here’s a clue: maybe they aren’t based on good science. Take the clue and run with it—that ought to be the response to this article.”
Processed Vegetables Oils Have Done Great Harm
Unfortunately, there are very real consequences to getting the dietary guidelines wrong. One example of this is the vilification of saturated fats and the encouragement to decrease fat consumption. That left us with polyunsaturated fats, which can be healthy as we need some omega-6 fats, but not in the form of processed vegetable oils. These have likely caused more harm than the overall increase in carbohydrates.
As noted by Teicholz, the rise in heart disease in the U.S. goes in perfect lockstep with the rise in vegetable oils in the early 1920’s and 30’s. It was an unintended consequence of getting rid of saturated fats—a move partly orchestrated by the industry, which developed ways to extract oils from seeds and beans.
Today we’re dealing with another, very similar fallout. Once the FDA banned trans fats, the food industry started using interesterified fats and traditional vegetable oils, which produce extremely toxic byproducts when heated. One category called aldehydes are highly inflammatory, and may promote heart disease and Alzheimer’s.
So by not going far enough, and failing to make the recommendation to switch back to lard and other healthier fats, we may simply have jumped from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.
Saturated Fat Is Still Wrongly Vilified
The 2015-2020 dietary guidelines still recommend capping saturated fat consumption at a maximum of 10 percent of your daily calories. Personally, I eat a whole lot more than that, and there’s evidence to suggest some people may benefit from as much as 50 to 80 percent. Teicholz has done serious study in this area, and she offers the following rebuttal to those who insist saturated fat should be limited to protect your heart health:
“Saturated fats were condemned in the 1950s because they raised total cholesterol. When they could do better measurements, it shifted from total cholesterol to LDL cholesterol. But neither total nor LDL cholesterol, it turns out track very well with your heart attack risk. In other words, you’re just as likely to get a heart attack if you have high LDL as you have low LDL. That’s been shown in a number of clinical trials with thousands of people.
It turns out that, according to more reliable biomarkers – HDL cholesterol, your triglycerides, your LDL particle number, your LDL subfraction size, more up-to-date biomarkers that have now been developed that more reliably track with heart attacks – saturated fats looks perfectly good, if not healthy. In fact, saturated fats are the only food you can eat if you were to raise your HDL...
There’s also the fact that in the ‘60s and ‘70s, there were many large clinical trials on tens of thousands of people... where they took out saturated fats and replaced it with vegetable oils...reducing saturated fats down to 9 percent. In all of those trials, they could not demonstrate that reducing saturated fat reduced cardiovascular mortality. Those trials, a huge body of evidence, have basically been suppressed and ignored for decades.”
In the last five years, however, nearly a dozen systematic reviews and meta-analyses have looked at that clinical trial data, concluding that saturated fats have no adverse effect on cardiovascular mortality.
Yet the dietary guideline committee did not systematically review this evidence, even though they’re tasked with reviewing any new evidence that has emerged in the past five years. “They left a lot out, and that’s why they could come to the conclusion that the evidence against saturated fats was still strong in their view,” Teicholz says.
For the First Time, Dietary Guidelines Must Undergo Peer-Review
Interestingly, for the first time ever, Congress is getting involved. A meeting was held in October 2015, during which members of Congress asked USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell (who are jointly responsible for the dietary guidelines) a number of questions, including: ‘Why did your experts not use the Nutrition Evidence Library like they’re supposed to?,’ ‘Why are you issuing recommendations on children when there’s no data on children?,’ and “Why are the guidelines still a one-size-fits-all recommendation?’
“That level of concern is much higher than it has been in recent history, if ever, again, because the dietary guidelines haven’t worked. Anybody can see that, so there is a high level of concern in the Congress about it,” Teicholz says. In the end, Congress mandated the first ever peer-review of the dietary guidelines by the National Academy of Medicine.
They also asked members of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines expert committee to recuse themselves from the process. It’s unclear how long it will take to complete this review, but it will certainly be interesting to see the results.
Silver Linings
While there are still many problems with the dietary guidelines, a few recommendations have shifted in the right direction. For example, for the first time ever, they now recommend limiting sugar to a maximum of 10 percent of your total calories. They also suggest reducing refined grains. Another first: coffee and alcohol were singled out as being healthy in moderate amounts.
However, even though the guidelines tell you to avoid refined grains and eat more healthy whole grains, the actual diet model distributed to all the food assistance programs show the same amount of refined grains as before—three to five servings of refined grains, and three to five servings of whole grains. Why did they do that?
Teicholz theory on this is that it has to do with fortification. Refined grains, like breakfast cereals are typically fortified, allowing them to get specific nutrients into the food supply, because, believe it or not, the dietary guidelines do not actually meet nutrient targets for vitamins and minerals. And why don’t they meet nutritional sufficiency?
“My hypothesis is because they limit saturated fats. Most the nutrient-dense foods where those are found are organ meats, meat, dairy, and eggs – that’s where you’ll find the nutrients. So bizarrely, that’s why you have to recommend Americans to eat three to five servings of refined grains every day. That’s one reason,” Teicholz says.
Why the Dietary Guidelines Are Inappropriate for Most Americans
Another positive change is the shift in focus from individual nutrients to dietary patterns. As Teicholz says, “Nobody goes to dinner and says, ‘Can I have 25 percent fat, please?’ You talk about food.”
Examples of food patterns include the vegetarian and the Mediterranean style diet. On the downside, when Teicholz analyzed the actual amount of food in these dietary patterns, the same old patterns were found again. They all consist of about 55 percent carbohydrates, 32 to 34 percent fat, and they all recommend most of the same foods.
“The issue is that people do respond very individually to diet. There are different nutritional needs for children. Women respond differently from men. The elderly have different nutritional needs. There are genetic factors that influence people’s responses. To continue with the one-size-fits-all diet seems too foolhardy and not a good kind of policy to have,” she says.
“There’s also the particular variation in the American population now, which is metabolic health. If you are obese or have diabetes, that is a sign of your intolerance to a certain kind of carbohydrates. There needs to be included in the guidelines a recommendation for those people, because who are those people?
Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese. More than half are pre-diabetic or diabetic. The guidelines are not for those people. So you’re talking about a policy that doesn’t address the majority of America. But there’s no big caveat that comes with the guidelines saying, “Hey America, most of these are not for most of you.”
Basic Advice: Eat Real Food
Perhaps the broadest dietary recommendation for health is simply to eat real food. Sure, people might eat more fat, but if it’s processed vegetables oils, you’ll simply get sick and die prematurely. By eating real food, as close to its natural state as possible, you’re likely to be much healthier simply because you’ll avoid a lot of processed foods.
Science actually confirms that a wide variety of diets can be healthy — provided they're based on real food, as unadulterated foods contain all the nutrients your body needs, and in far more ideal ratios than nutritional scientists can guesstimate.
Another requirement is that your diet be nutritionally sufficient and have the basic nutrients needed for life. “I think if you say eat real food that is nutritionally sufficient, that would be enough. That would narrow down your options,” Teicholz says. There are some really good databases out there that can help you determine whether or not you’re meeting your nutritional needs.
Beware that even this strategy has its shortcomings though. As noted by Teicholz: “The subtle twist is that nutrients are not all equally bioavailable from all foods. You need to eat, for example, fat-soluble vitamins with fats ... If you don’t have the vitamins, you can’t absorb the minerals.
So it’s more complicated than just simply tallying it up. But it’s a good start.” It can be especially useful for determining the ratios of nutrients in your diet, such as the percentage of protein, carbohydrates, and fat, or the ratio of saturated versus polyunsaturated fat.
For more guidance on what makes for a healthy diet, I recommend reading through my optimized nutrition plan. You may also print out my version of the food pyramid.
The GMO food labeling movement has gained momentum over the past several years, passing labeling laws in three states. America's awareness of the risks of genetically engineered (GE) foods and genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to their health and the environment continues to expand.
The Future of Food is not a new film, but still does an excellent job of covering contemporary issues that continue to threaten your health, including genetic engineering, gene patenting, and the corporatization of the food supply.
The film has received multiple awards, including Best Documentary at the dead CENTER Film Festival in 2004, as well as an Oscar nomination for the same.1 Of special importance to me, it was the movie that catalyzed my interest in the GMO problem and after watching it, I committed to doing everything I could to stop this danger.
I recently had the opportunity to interview Deborah Garcia about her new film Symphony of the Soil when I was lecturing in Santa Rosa California at the Heirloom Seed Conference.
The US has no laws requiring the labeling of GE foods, yet polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans—over 90 percent in most polls—believe these foods should be labeled. Sixty-four countries already require the labeling of GE foods, including European Union states, Japan, and China.2
More than 80 percent of all processed foods sold in the US now contain GE ingredients. With elections around the corner and labeling initiatives making the ballot in two states, it's important to know what's at stake.
As GE Labeling Initiatives Grow, Industry's War Against Labeling Rages On
Genetically engineered food labeling laws have passed in Vermont, Connecticut, and Maine, and more than 20 other states are presently considering them. California and Washington saw very narrow losses in 2012 and 2013, by three percent and one percent, respectively.3
GE labeling initiatives will be on this November's ballot in Oregon and Colorado. It's just a matter of time before the scales really begin tipping in our favor. But industry won't give up without a fight.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association of America (GMA), whom I recently named "the most evil corporation on the planet," is suing Vermont in an effort to overturn their recently passed labeling law.
GMA is also pushing a Congressional bill, the "Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014, dubbed the "DARK" (Denying Americans the Right to Know) Act, which would bar states from passing GE labeling laws altogether.
Industry's latest tactic is launching a coordinated attack against Vandana Shiva, one of the world's most vocal and well-respected environmentalists and anti-GE activists.
Oregonians are more determined than ever, with this year's initiative being their second attempt to pass a labeling measure—their first back in 2002. Measure 27 failed (20 percent to 80 percent).
This was due to the pressure of a massive smear campaign promulgated by industry groups like DuPont, General Mills, and of course GMA. Reflecting upon the past decade, we've gone from losing by 80 percent 12 years ago to losing by just one percent last year—so the tides are definitely turning.
Nevertheless, industry will continue its war on labeling at any cost—there seems to be no limit to the lies money can buy. Between 2012 and mid-2014, Monsanto and GMA successfully blocked GE labeling legislation in more than 30 states, with a price tag exceeding $100 million.
'The Largest Biological Experiment Humanity Has Ever Seen'
With genetic engineering, in order for a gene to be inserted into a cell, you need something good at invading cells, which is why bacteria and viruses are typically used to "smuggle" desirable DNA from one organism into another... a complicated and unpredictable process.
What could possible go wrong? Well, any number of things—take suicide genes, for example. "Suicide genes" are inserted into the DNA of GE plants in order to prevent their seeds from being viable for future use. This forces a farmer to purchase seeds from the seed company every season.
Imagine the ramifications on our food supply if these suicide genes were to transfer to other seeds around the world, where farmers collect their seed for next year's crops, or raise rare heirloom varieties.
Another issue is the insertion of antibiotic marker genes, which is concerning due to its potential for worsening the widespread problem of antibiotic resistance. And then there is the issue of viral DNA appearing in unexpected places. The European Food Safety Authority discovered a hidden viral gene in 54 of 84 commercially approved GE crops. Plant pathologists spoke out about the potential dangers of this viral gene fragment, stating it may confer "significant potential for harm," and called for a total recall of affected crops.
Plants expressing the viral gene fragment exhibit gene expression abnormalities, which indicates that the protein produced by the gene functions as a toxin. The known targets of its activity are also found in human cells, so there is potential for this plant toxin to produce toxic effects in humans. These are just three possible consequences of genetically manipulating our food supply—but there are many more frightening scenarios that are less than far-fetched. A single gene can express or influence a variety of traits. According to Dr. Ignacio Chapela, Microbial Ecologist, University of California Berkeley:
"As we move on into the biotech revolution and we're producing more and more transgenic manipulations, we will start seeing pieces of DNA interacting with each other in ways that are totally unpredictable. This is probably the largest biological experiment humanity has ever entered into."
Today's Food System Kills Bees, Decimates Soil, and Squelches Diversity
Genetic engineering has created a food system rooted in monoculture and heavy agrichemical use, such as synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides. Ten thousand agricultural chemicals have been registered for use. More than 1.1 billion pounds of toxic pesticides, including glyphosate and atrazine, are used annually, costing $25 billion.
While nearly one billion pounds of glyphosate is doused on both conventional and GE crops worldwide each year, GE crops receive the heaviest amounts. The majority ends up in our soil and waterways, destroying soil's beneficial organisms while allowing pathogens to flourish. These toxic agricultural chemicals are also killing off our bees and butterflies.
In addition to decimating soils, industrialized agriculture wastes energy, water, and other precious natural resources, as well as trapping farmers in a vicious cycle of using more and more chemicals. For example, those planting Monsanto's Bt cornincur severe damage from the resistant corn rootworm, so they are forced to apply increasing amounts of pesticide to try and rescue their failing Bt crops. Furthermore, GE crops and monoculture result in "erosion of diversity."
When you insert one single genotype that preferentially passes its genes to the progeny, it crowds out genetic diversity, and in the long-term this presents a serious threat to the food supply. Genetic uniformity increases vulnerability to pests and disease.4 This is why dozens of countries have banned GE crops. Ninety-seven percent of vegetable varieties grown at the beginning of the 20th Century are now extinct.
Glyphosate Linked to Birth Defects and Hormone-Dependent Cancers
Residues of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's popular herbicide Roundup, are found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet, courtesy of GE sugar, corn, and soy, as well as conventionally-grown desiccated wheat.Atrazine and nitrates form a deadly combination, as nitrates shut off your body's defenses against these chemicals. Research suggests glyphosate may "enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions (including gut bacteria) and promote disease." Glyphosate also appears to stimulate hormone-dependent cancers even at extremely low concentrations.
Studies show that even tiny exposures to common agricultural chemicals can induce abortions and resorption of fetuses in pregnant women. In fact, the greatest effects appear to be from the lowest doses. Very small exposures can alter developmental trajectories, resulting in birth defects, irregularities in genitalia, and learning impairments. Babies conceived during the months of highest lawn chemical use are known to have greater risks for these birth defects and developmental abnormalities. When children are overexposed to glyphosate, especially through consumption of GE foods, their likelihood of having an adverse vaccine reaction also increases.
Monsanto Attacks Farmers for Patent Infringement
For 200 years, the patenting of life was prohibited, especially with respect to foods. But all of that changed in 1978 with the first patent of a living organism, an oil-eating microbe, which opened the proverbial floodgates. Patenting of life forms was never approved by Congress or the American public. But as far the GE industry is concerned, they own a gene, wherever it ends up. According to OCA, as of August 2013, Monsanto owned 1,676 seed, plant, and other similar patents.5
Unlike GE drugs that are produced under controlled conditions in secured labs, once GE plants are released into the environment, they cannot be controlled. Uncontrolled spreading of GE seed is commonplace. This benefits only the patent holder—which raises the question, "Was this their plan all along?"
Monsanto has been suing farmers for patent infringement if GE plants are found in their fields, regardless of how they got there. Sometimes canola seeds blow off trucks into nearby fields or pollen is transported by the wind. Monsanto claims to own any plant that bears its patented genes, which is devastating to small farmers. It doesn't help that there are thousands of secret GE crop test sites across the US... you could be living right next to one and not even know it.6 Monsanto has filed over 140 lawsuits against farmers for intentionally planting its seeds without paying royalties, and settled another 700 cases. Most farmers agree to pay a fine in order to avoid a costly lawsuit.
In 2014, the US Supreme Court struck down a case that would have protected farmers if their fields became inadvertently contaminated with patented seeds, giving Monsanto the legal rights to continue suing farmers for patent infringement.7,8Making farmers responsible for Monsanto's genes is like having your neighbor hold YOU responsible for erecting a fence to keep HIS dog out of your yard. Unfortunately, there is no fence high enough to keep GE seeds out of neighboring land.
The Revolving Door Between Government and Industry
The genetic engineering of our food system is proceeding essentially unregulated, despite the fact that three federal agencies are responsible for the safety of genetically engineered foods.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for assessing the environmental impacts of GE crops and regulating GE crop field testing. However, in a study of more than 8,000 field test applications, not a single environmental assessment was required by USDA. In fact, new USDA rules actually cut the time in half that it takes GE seed developers to go through a regulatory review.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates insecticides. Bt insecticide is engineered into every cell of Bt crops. EPA approved an exemption for residue tolerance levels for Bt toxin in GE soy foods and animal feed, so that Monsanto and other pesticide companies can incorporate as much as they want. The agency also recently raised allowable levels of glyphosate in food by significant amounts.9,10 Allowable levels in oilseed crops such as soy were doubled, from 20 ppm to 40 ppm just last summer. It also raised the levels of permissible glyphosate contamination in other foods—many of which were raised to 15-25 times previous levels.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for food safety. Every novel substance in food must be tested. However, GE foods (such as soy lecithin and corn syrup) were granted "GRAS status" (generally regarded as safe) using the argument of "substantially equivalent"— which exempts them from testing or labeling. This was done through a former VP of Monsanto Michael Taylor, who was deputy commissioner of the FDA in the early 90s. Despite many studies in the last 20 years disproving the substantially equivalent claim, the FDA has failed to reverse its decision.
How does the government get away with this? It's fairly simple. It fills its regulatory positions with corporate shills—there's a revolving door for people with industry ties, such as Michael Taylor, Linda Fisher, Donald Rumsfeld, and others. Monsantohas deep roots in Washington, DC. Former Attorney General John Ashcroft received Monsanto's largest contribution to any political candidate in the 2000 election, toward his campaign for senate re-election. Corporate interests explain why the government continues to look the other way.
Subsidizing the Junk Food Industry
While the agrichemical industry rakes in record profits from GE seeds, farmers lose money growing them and can't stay in business without government subsidies. As of the time of this film (2004), the farmer's cost for growing one bushel of GE corn or soy was $3.20, and their return was about $2.20. Obviously, farmers were unable to stay in business with this sort of margin, so agricultural subsidies were created. When wealthy countries subsidize crops, there are global repercussions—the markets of developing countries are undercut, making subsistence farming virtually impossible.
Subsidies support only the most widely grown industrial crops—corn, wheat, and soybeans—ergo, those that go directly to the processed food industry. Far from providing us with nutrition, US agricultural subsidies contribute to the declining health of Americans and fuel the obesity epidemic. It's complete idiocy... junk food is subsidized in one department, while another department across the hall funds an anti-obesity campaign.
Over the past 15 years, taxpayers have paid corn farmers more than $77 billion in subsidies, and more than 75 percent of the funds are paid to a mere 10 percent of America's farmers. Farm subsidies are no longer based on need. Mega-farms receive an annual fixed cash payment based on their acreage, whether they need them or not. Large corporate farms receive the majority of farm subsidies while small farmers receive little to none. You subsidize the junk food industry with your taxes, whether you consume their products or not. As farm subsidies are already in the federal budget, a better approach might be to reallocate them in a way that provides incentives to farmers who grow healthy crops using sustainable farming methods.
A Three-Step Self-Help Plan to Avoid Genetically Engineered Foods
On a brighter note, consumer spending trends reflect America's growing awareness about the shortfalls of the industrial food system. Consider America's growing hunger for organic foods:11,12
In 1990, Americans spent one billion dollars on organic foods
In 2003, they spent $13 billion
In 2009, they spent $24.8 billion
In 2013, they spent $35.1 billion
A recent report showed that 65 percent of consumers prefer foods with organic ingredients
In a recent interview, research scientist and internationally recognized sustainability expert Dr. Elaine Ingham suggested the following three-step plan to help you avoid GE foods:
Choose local organic food. This is a must if you want to stop supporting the likes of Monsanto with your hard-earned dollars. Genetically engineered seeds and materials are not allowed in organic farming and food production, so at present it's the only way to ensure you're not accidentally buying something with GE ingredients. Beware that the terms "natural" or "all-natural" on a label has absolutely NO meaning when it comes to GE ingredients—the natural label is in no way interchangeable with the certified organic label.
Improve the soil in your garden and grow your own vegetables. This is my new passion. Please refer to my interview with Paul Gautschi to learn simple strategies you can use to make your home or local garden thrive.
Support GMO labeling campaigns. With elections quickly approaching, this is the time to get the word out to your friends and family about the importance of passing labeling laws. Forward this article as widely as you can to increase awareness about this important issue.
I recently named the GMA “the most evil corporation on the planet,” considering the fact that it consists primarily of pesticide producers and junk food manufacturers who are going to great lengths to violate some of your most basic rights—just to ensure that subsidized, genetically engineered and chemical-dependent, highly processed junk food remains the status quo.
The insanity has gone far enough. It’s time to unite and fight back, which is why I encourage you to boycott every single product owned by members of the GMA, including natural and organic brands. To learn more about this boycott, and the traitor brands that are included, please visit TheBoycottList.org. I also encourage you to donate to the Organic Consumers Fund. Your donation will help fight the GMA lawsuit in Vermont, and also help win the GMO labeling ballot initiative in Oregon in November.
Voting with your pocketbook, at every meal, matters. It makes a huge difference. By boycotting GMA Member Traitor Brands, you can help level the playing field, and help take back control of our food supply. And as always, continue educating yourself about genetically engineered foods, and share what you’ve learned with family and friends.
