Sacramento voters interested in nutrition will be voting on Proposition 37. There’s a money issue when supporters of Proposition 37 have only raised $4.6 million from alternative health websites such as Mercola.com, organic food companies, those who produce natural products such as organic foods, soaps, and supplements, and some alternative health-related professionals and sites.
One issue is whether what’s in the package is the same as what’s on the label. The other is the cost to the consumer of knowing what’s on the label. And the third issue is the cost to the giant companies of whether they’d lose income and business if the foods were labeled that they contained lower-costing genetically modified ingredients such as those grown from seeds stuffed with pesticides to make them resistant to bugs or the weeds around them or animals modified at the DNA level by genetic engineering technology.
Do the studies with lab animals hold weight in the eyes of the consumer? Or will people turn to mainstream health organizations instead of alternative health research studies for answers on how to vote?
Opponents of Proposition 37 have big money on their side and supporters have organic products and alternative health research informational sites in their corner
Opponents are the huge corporations using genetically modified products such as corn syrup and seeds containing pesticides that have raised $34.5 million. So you see how choice is stacked against the frugal consumer trying to buy the healthiest food possible on a tight food budget. Notice how few coupons issued are for organic foods that don’t contain ingredients that began as GMO engineered corn, soybeans, sugar beets (sugar), canola, or cotton. Labeling genetically engineered foods is the issue, but even the wealthier organic food companies that have seen a rise in consumers still have far fewer dollars.
The issue is who will win, the little man, such as the organic farmer and consumer, or the huge corporation in cahoots with the mainstream health organizations? Will the alternative health sites win over the pesticide companies and the major snack and soda manufacturers along with the huge agriculture and grocery industry giants that sell the most to the most people? Europe has a different view on GMO foods. British MPs from the Environmental Audit Committee have told the government that major new field tests should be done before any genetically modified crops are allowed to be grown commercially in Britain.
But here in the USA, the question remains: Will the generally not-as- wealthy supporters win, most of whom are those who are interested in environmental law, organic food consumers or producers, and the alternative health sites or supporters? You don’t find many super-wealthy entertainment celebrities or Silicon Valley techno-billionaire figures coming forward who themselves may be on vegan or organic diets with pockets as deep as the snack and soda manufacturers or pesticide corporations.
Also, most medical schools don’t give many hours of class work in organic or non-GMO nutrition issues, except perhaps some of the environmental medical studies programs. So as a result, you don’t find many family physicians (unless they’re allergy or environmental impact specialists or into alternative medicine) aware of the effects of GMO foods on humans or animals in research, other than the fact that the FDA doesn’t allow canola oil in infant formula.
Health and environmental impacts are the biggest concern. With 90 percent of corn and soybeans being genetically engineered in the USA, according to the USDA, the push is to grow more food for less expense. And consumers say that push to make more profit is taking away choice by substituting greed for safety and health and environment in the long term and that the government may not be looking at what’s safe regarding food labeling laws. Many processed foods don’t really include on the labeling everything in the package.
By voting yes, it means you would like to require labeling of genetically engineered foods
The GMO term refers to changing the DNA of edible plants and animals to change the characteristics, the genes in order to make that crop or harvest resistant to microbes and insects or other pests. It’s about modifying genetically a seed so that the seed is mixed with pesticides and/or insecticides to make it resistant to pests that would otherwise destroy the crop. One example would be to mix soybeans in the seed stage with chemicals so that the soybeans are bred to tolerate Round-Up, the weed killer.
Under Proposition 37, genetically modified foods do not refer to cross-breeding one type of fruit with another to get a sweeter or more reddish-colored fruit. An example would be to breed tomatoes in different sizes or in such a way to make them sweeter or to breed blueberries to make more sugar in them.
The term genetically modified as defined by Proposition 37 refers to mixing the seeds with pesticides or other chemicals through genetic engineering to make the seeds and plants resistant to weed killing chemicals such as Round-up which is made to kill weeds but keep the edible plant alive. The plant becomes tolerant of the chemical weed killers by having pesticides put into the DNA of the plant when it’s still a seed or bean. It’s a biotech process.
Common genetically-engineered food crops such as canola, soybeans, corn, sugar beets, and cotton
Canola oil is mentioned as a genetically engineered crop (unless it’s labeled as organic canola). According to the article, Canola Oil Undesirable Health Effects – at Vegetarian Forum, about two-thirds of the monounsaturated fatty acids in rapeseed oil are erucic acid, a 22-carbon monounsaturated fatty acid that had been associated with Keshan’s disease, characterised by fibrotic lesions of the heart. In the late 1970s, using a technique of genetic manipulation involving seed splitting, two Canadian plant breeders came up with a variety of rapeseed that produced a monounsaturated oil that was low in 22-carbon erucic acid and high in 18-carbon oleic acid.
The first seed oil to be created through genetic manipulation, canola is also the focus of a variety of genetic engineering (GMO) projects in which genetic material from other species is inserted into the seeds in order to magnify certain traits in the resultant plant, according to the article, The Great Con-ola – BecomeHealthyNow.com. Herbicide-resistant GMO canola now comprises a large portion of the total canola crop. Apologists point to endorsement by the FDA and the American Dietetic Association that GMO canola is nutritionally and environmentally safe and claim that the GMO variety means less spraying of herbicides, less chemical runoff and a boon to farmers.
Studies done at the Health Research and Toxicology Research Divisions in Ottawa, Canada, discovered that rats bred to have high blood pressure and proneness to stroke had shortened life-spans when fed canola oil as the sole source of fat. The results of a later study suggested that the culprit was the sterol compounds in the oil, which “make the cell membrane more rigid” and contribute to the shortened life-span of the animals, according to the study or its abstract, “Vegetable oils high in phytosterols make erythrocytes less Deformable and Shorten the Life Span of Stroke-Prone Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats. Journal of the American Society for Nutritional Sciences, May 2000.”
And check out the USDA ERS – Soybeans & Oil Crops: Canola, Federal Register, 1985. These studies point in the same direction. So consumers have to ask the question: Is canola oil healthy or not so healthy for the human cardiovascular system? Lab studies were done on rodents. How similar are the DNA systems between rats and humans? In many cases, they are somewhat similar. But the question comes up even though the government may say the oil is safe. Like rapeseed oil, its predecessor, canola oil is associated with fibrotic lesions of the heart when referring to the research on lab rats.
So you have to look at whether the oil also causes vitamin E deficiency, undesirable changes in the blood platelets, and shortened life-span in stroke-prone rats when it was the only oil in the animals’ diet. At least the FDA doesn’t allow canola oil in infant formula. That should give you a clue as to the effects on humans. According to studies, the oil appears to retard growth, which is why the FDA does not allow the use of canola oil in infant formula. For further information on this issue, see, Federal Register, 1985.
You may also want to check out the study, “Dietary monounsaturated fatty acids promote aortic atherosclerosis in LDL-receptor-null, human ApoB100-overexpressing transgenic mice”, Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology, November 1998;18(11):1818-27. Also see, The Great Con-ola 8/17/02 – Natural Health Information to get both sides of the issue.
On the other hand, The World Health Organization says the genetically engineered food currently on the market is safe, and the American Medical Association says there is no reason to specially label it. Hundreds of health studies vouch for the technology. Also, see the September 30, 2012 Sacramento Bee article, “Calif. voters to decide on labeling genetically modified foods.”
Check out the September 19, 2012 article by Yes on Proposition 37, ” Massive Tumors in Rats Fed GMOs in First-Ever Long-Term Study.” This statement is published online by the Sacramento Bee. It’s a “Statement from Yes on Proposition 37, California Right to Know GMO Labeling Campaign.”
Genetically engineered soybeans are in common commercial varieties of soy sauce, soy lecithin granules you take as a supplement (unless the container says organic) and foods. In baking, numerous chefs substitute mashed prunes and soy lecithin granules for fats when preparing cakes and cookies. In genetically modified sugar beet crops, you find sugar made from them labeled as beet sugar, unless the label says organic.
Most corn products you find in processed foods are made with GMO corn
Examples would be corn syrup in many processed and restaurant foods, syrups, sodas, and a wide variety of prepared and frozen foods, including some salad dressings and varieties of sodas. You find GMO corn in commercial cornstarch bought from most supermarkets and found in restaurants. For example, Asian-style restaurants may thicken their stir-fried foods with corn starch and sugar, for example in making chow mein and various sauces put over stir-fried broccoli and other vegetables, seafood, chicken, pork, rice, and beef.
You have GMO corn in corn flour, corn tortillas unless the package says made from organic corn or sprouted organic corn, corn meal, polenta made from commercial corn meal, corn oil and other corn products and canned or processed foods, including frozen corn kernels, and the corn served in most restaurants.
You have cotton seed oil in some food products or cooking oils made from genetically engineered cotton, and there’s the canola oil you find in most commercial salad dressings, restaurant food, and other products containing oil from processed frozen and fried foods to condiments. The fact is the portion of genetically engineered crops, especially corn and soybeans in the USA has increased dramatically in the past decade.
Check out the September 30, 2012 Sacramento Bee article by Laurel Rosenhall, “California to vote on labeling genetically modified foods.” The print newspaper version of the article is “Labeling genetically engineered foods.” The article contains tables and facts on Proposition 37 and what it would do as well as what the organic food companies are saying and who’s supporting Proposition 37.
On one side you have the supporters, including who make organic foods, the Environmental Law Foundation’s First Amendment Project, and Mercola.com, the alternative health website. On the other side are the companies that make pesticides and genetically engineered edible plant seeds such as Monsanto, DuPont, and Bayer.
You have the largest soda and snack food companies including Pepsi, Coke, Nestle, General Mills, and Conagra. And you have numerous agriculture and grocery industry associations. All of these huge corporations don’t want to lose their business or income. You have mainstream health organizations on their side saying its safe to eat genetically engineered crops.
The money is stacked against the supporters of Proposition 37 because the opponents have raised $34.5 million from the huge corporations making pesticides, snack foods, and genetically engineered seeds as well as the large companies making the most popular sodas that use corn syrup made with genetically modified corn. That’s because corn syrup in sodas is cheap in the USA. In Mexico, where sugar is used in sodas instead of corn syrup, sugar happens to cost less there.
People with food sensitivities and those who claim they can eat almost anything still want more choices. If genetically engineered food is safe, they argue, then why is there such opposition to labeling it?
GMO corn linked to illnesses in animals in recent study
According to the Newswire press release from Oakland, “Genetically engineered corn was linked to mammary tumors, kidney and liver damage and other serious illnesses in the first ever peer-reviewed, long-term animal study of these foods. The findings were published today in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology.” Read the study at the Sustainable Food Trust.org research site.
While numerous 90-day studies have already linked GMO foods to allergies and other health problems, today’s publication marks the first-ever long term animal study on the health effects of genetically engineered foods, and comes as California voters consider the Proposition 37 Right to Know initiative to label genetically engineered foods.
In response to this study, Yes on Proposition 37 California Right to Know Campaign Manager Gary Ruskin released the following statement:
“The results of this study are worrying. They underscore the importance of giving California families the right to know whether our food is genetically engineered, and to decide for ourselves whether we want to gamble with our health by eating GMO foods that have not been adequately studied and have not been proven safe. By requiring simple labels on genetically engineered foods, Proposition 37 gives Californians the ability to choose whether to expose ourselves and our families to any potential health risks. The right to know is fundamental, and that’s why 50 countries around the world have already enacted labeling requirements for genetically engineered food.”
The study’s authors, together with the non-profit organization SustainableFoodTrust, on September 19, 2012 hosted a press conference call to discuss the study. Here’s what was noted at the press conference.
“Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, Molecular Biologist at Caen University and first author of the research being discussed. Professor Seralini was in charge of risk assessment for two government commissions and has advised the European Commission on the use of GMOs commercially. He is the President of the Scientific Board at Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRII-GEN).
Dr. Michael Antoniou, Professor of Molecular Genetics at Kings College, London School of Medicine. Dr. Antoniou has over 40 peer-reviewed publications of original work.
Patrick Holden, former director of the UK Soil Association and Founder of the Sustainable Food Trust (SFT). SFT has an interest in comparing different systems of agriculture and their impact on human and environmental health.”
Paid for by “Yes on 37 For Your Right to Know if Your Food Has Been Genetically Engineered.” Supported by “Consumer Advocates, Makers of Organic Products and California Farmers.” Major funding by Mercola.com Health Resources LLC, and the Organic Consumers Fund. Check out, Prop 37 – Organic Consumers Association. See, Join The Right To Know Campaign.
Are opponents are afraid of frivolous lawsuits?
Those who oppose Proposition 37 argue that the price of food would rise if companies had to spend more on non-GMO ingredients. The cheapest ingredients are genetically modified. That means the poorest people who can’t afford non-GMO ingredients are not only getting the short end of the stick in health care but also in food quality when it comes down to what the point really is about, being given a choice without having to be richer or poorer in order to have a choice about what’s in the most commercial, the most popular, and the best-selling foods in the nation.
The wealthiest corporations would have to use higher-priced ingredients in their foods or choose to label their foods. If they had to label their foods made with GMO ingredients, people might avoid buying the products. So the avoid having to put information on labels, they are opposing Proposition 37. Also mainstream health organizations say it’s safe to eat. But now the question remains whether the mainstream health organizations are influenced in any way either by pressure or money to agree with the biggest corporations seeking to use the cheapest ingredients to sell to the most people? It’s a question consumers want to have answered.
What’s the nutritional value of eating certified organic?
What’s the nutritional value of eating cold breakfast cereal that is certified organic and has no genetically modified grains or seeds such as corn compared to commercial cereal that isn’t organic and doesn’t even say on the label whether the corn or other grains are genetically modified or not?
Should you buy cereal containing GMOs? You may want to check out the research linking GMO corn to cancer tumors and an increase risk of premature death in both men and women. You can vote to support Proposition 37 — which seeks to label GMOs in foods.
10 Breakfast cereals made with non-organic corn
You could check out the statistics from the Center for Food Safety, that notes up to 85% of the corn grown in the United States is genetically modified. We don’t know if the non-organic corn is genetically mofidied (GMO) or not unless it says it’s made or not made with (or containing) GMO grain such as corn. But you have to realize that all tests were made on animals such as lab rats, not on humans. No test has been done on humans to show non-organic corn causes any type of tumors or cancers, of course. See, General Mills cuts sugar content in children’s cereals but still uses GMOs.
All you can surmise is that the cereals contain non-organic corn or at least are not labeled as non-GMO and/or non-organic, or are not labeled at all as to what type of corn they contain. So all you have been told is that the cereals contain corn. And there are no organic corn labels on any of the cereals. All you know are that the following are the top 10 popular breakfast cereals in the USA.
The top 10 popular breakfast cereals that contain non-organic corn are the following:
1. Cocoa Puffs
2. Corn Chex
3. Frosted Flakes
4. Graham Oh’s
5. Honey Nut Chex
6. Kashi Heart to Heart
7. Kellogg’s Corn Flakes
8. Kellogg’s Corn Pops
10. Barbara’s Bakery: Puffins Peanut Butter
Cereals that contain no GMO, no genetically modified corn and other grains
Cereals that say they contain no GMOs include cereals made by the brand, Nature’s Path, which is certified organic and Non-GMO Project Verified. The company emphasizes sustainability and has signed the Sustainable Food Trade Association’s declaration of sustainability in 2008 and have been using their guidelines to chart its course ever since. Building on the momentum of previous years, in 2011 Nature’s Path managed to take pretty big steps leading us to achieve some great wins for both people and planet.
The labels of some products of different brands of cereals, most often children’s cereals, may say any of the grains are not genetically modified. Also you need to know that the name ‘natural’ doesn’t mean organic and doesn’t mean GMO-free. In school, children usually are fed commercial cereals that schools buy in large amounts. So you have no idea whether your child each day is getting GMO corn unless you send your child to school with special containers of food brought form home. Also see, Natural’ breakfast cereals loaded with pesticides and GMOs – explosive new scorecard from Cornucopia reveals all.
Many “natural” brands that appear to be healthful and natural are actually not organic or GMO-free. For example, “Barbara’s Bakery” cereals are not organic. Although they are positioned in store shelves alongside other organic cereals, they are actually made with conventional crops grown with pesticides which may include Monsanto’s Roundup, according to the article, “The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn,” by Mike Adams, editor of Natural News.com. Also check out the articles, New GMO study: Rats fed lifetime of GM corn grow tumors and the CBS News article, “Study says genetically modified corn causes tumors, but other scientists skeptical about research.”
Kudos to Mike Adams who is a consumer health advocate and award-winning journalist with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal. He has authored and published thousands of articles, interviews, consumers guides, and books on topics like health and the environment, and he is well known as the creator of popular downloadable preparedness programs on financial collapse, emergency food storage, wilderness survival and home defense skills.
Adams is a trusted, independent journalist who receives no money or promotional fees whatsoever to write about other companies’ products. In 2010, Adams launched TV.NaturalNews.com, a natural health video site featuring videos on holistic health and green living.
He also founded an environmentally-friendly online retailer called BetterLifeGoods.com that uses retail profits to help support consumer advocacy programs. He’s also a successful software entrepreneur, having founded a well known email marketing software company whose technology currently powers the NaturalNews email newsletters.
Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and practices nature photography, Capoeira, martial arts and organic gardening. Known as the ‘Health Ranger,’ Adams’ personal health statistics and mission statements are located at the Health Ranger.org website.
What type of cold cereals are schools serving to children at breakfast or snack time?
Schools buy many cereals on a tight budget and in large amounts to serve to children, and mostly children’s cereals contain sugar and GMO corn. But the marketing of other breakfast types of sugary options are increasing, such as sugary pastries such as tarts and waffles that are quickly toasted or warmed at served to kids with or without additional sugary syrups or jams. See, Manufacturers bow to demand for healthier cereals, but increase marketing of sugary options to children.
The questions for parents is how nutritious are the so-called super food cereals? Check out the review, Superfood Cereals: A review of the most delicious and nutritious superfoods for morning meals.
On the other hand you do have some companies switching to whole grain breakfast cereals, but then again, you need to see a certified organic label on any whole grain product. For examples, waffles can be whole grain, but what else have do they have in them and how long were they frozen?
Check out the articles, General Mills takes leadership step in switching to whole grain breakfast cereal and Kellogg’s launches reduced sugar breakfast cereals, but white flour content remains high.Check out these two articles from NaturalNews.com: Whole Foods knowingly engages in massive GMO deception, says undercover video by ‘Organic Spies’ and The top 10 breakfast cereals most likely to contain Monsanto’s GMO corn.
Then again, you cook boil some organic red quinoa in water and put it in the refrigerator to serve the next morning for breakfast with some fruit, such as berries or raisins either cold or warmed up — or as a salad. But with red quinoa averaging close to $9 a pound in Sacramento, few families, let alone schools have the budgets for the healthiest of grains, including the gluten-free grains for children’s breakfast meals, unless you grow your own in your yard or in urban gardens open to the community and/ or schools.
Also please subscribe to my various nutrition, health, or cultural media columns such as the Sacramento Nutrition Examiner column, Sacramento Healthy Trends Examiner column, Sacramento Holistic Family Health Examiner, Sacramento Media & Culture Examiner column, and my national columns: National Senior Health Examiner column, National Children’s Nutrition Examiner column, and National Healthy Trends Examiner column.
Follow Anne Hart’s various Examiner articles on nutrition, health, and culture on this Facebook site and/or this Twitter site. Also see some of Anne Hart’s 91 paperback books at: iUniverse, and Career Press. Or see the author’s website. Please follow my columns on Pinterest or Pinterest Sacramento Nutrition Examiner.
For more info: browse my books, How Nutrigenomics Fights Childhood Type 2 Diabetes & Weight Issues (2009). Or see my books, How to Safely Tailor Your Foods, Medicines, & Cosmetics to Your Genes (2003), How to Open DNA-driven Genealogy Reporting & Interpreting Businesses. (2007), or Do You Have the Aptitude & Personality to Be A Popular Author: Creative Writing Assessments – IUniverse. (2009).