Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Trapped in Traditional Thought by Scott McKain
In this recent blog, McKain points out that a thirty second spot on the number one television show, "NCIS" costs $133,304 while a thirty second spot on "Grey's Anatomy" costs $240,462. Given the fact that "NCIS" has four million more viewers than "Grey's Anatomy", why would the ads cost less for "NCIS"?This contradiction points to the traditional agency approach and thinking when it comes to what population segments to target. The demographics for "Grey's Anatomy" are younger and the agencies believe that younger viewers will be more easily influenced and become brand loyal over time. McKain points to the fact that his brand choices during his younger years have indeed changed over time. In his younger years, he drove a Chevy and now he drives a BMW, he drank Pepsi and now drinks Diet Coke, he listened to a Sony Walkman and now listens to an iPod, etc.Matt Thornhill, in his book, Boomer Consumer, states that Baby Boomers are no where near done consuming. They will be buying things marketed to them for the next 20 years. And they represent a very large segment of the population. He also points out that with age comes wisdom and that Boomers are not particularly brand loyal. They are ripe for conversion, if a product appeals to their needs.So why should the advertisers and ad agencies focus more on Boomers than the younger generations? Let's start with the fact that Baby Boomers spend $2 trillion a year on consumer products and services. That is $400 billion more annually than their younger generation counterparts. Baby Boomers represent one of every three adults in America. Almost 80 million Americans are Boomers!Boomers like to travel, they buy lots of tech gadgets, they are still buying cars and homes, they are into fitness, and they eat out regularly. Given that a large portion of the Boomers are empty nesters with disposable income, they should be the prime targets of the marketers and advertisers in this country. And even the Boomers who aren't empty nesters, keep their kids clothed, fed and supplied with plenty of music and electronics.Baby Boomers control 70% of the wealth in America. So why don't the advertisers and ad agencies target them more? It is beyond comprehension. And as a Boomer, believe me when I say, we would really prefer fewer advertisements about erectile dysfunction and bladder issues. Keep in mind, Baby Boomers on average feel like they are 14 years younger than their actual age. Treat them as seniors or older Americans and you won't sell them anything.Use words like mature or senior in your ad and the Baby Boomers will tune you out in a New York minute. So if you expect to capture their attention, don't try to take them back to the sixties or seventies or use age related content. Most Boomers still believe that they are young and vital. Treat them as such and you will be more successful. Don't over do it, though. If you treat them like twenty or thirty year olds, then you will miss the boat and waste your ad dollarsThe characters portraying Boomers in advertisements should be cool, hip, and youthful, not grandpa or grandma. Baby Boomers remain idealistic, eager to embrace change, and believe in self empowerment. Don't expect them to march in lockstep or be influenced or persuaded by traditional approaches. If an ad agency expects keep its clients, it had better begin targeting this segment of the population and use non-traditional, innovative approaches when designing the campaigns.Finally, when creating the ads, the agency should understand that Boomers are more receptive to the ads that tell a story. Boomers expect the ad to appeal to their generation, so make sure you personalize the pitch to them. When using personalities in an ad, ensure that the Boomers can identify and relate to the personalities. Be sure to include a "what's in it for me" connection. Follow these simple rules, create a compelling ad and you should be able to capture this lucrative market segment.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
I agree with the majority of what this article says...
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Ditch the Climate Change Debate by Ron Jones
A recent editorial cartoon that I ran across cleverly expressed a great deal of my own thoughts around the climate change debate. The cartoonist (Joel Pett, Lexington Herald-Leader) depicts an obviously unconvinced audience member at a presentation where benefits of clean energy are being displayed on the stage screen. The attendee is shown demanding an answer to a question similar to the following:
"What if it turns out that climate change is all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
The presenter he is questioning has a list of goals on the screen including:
• Energy Independence
• Preserve Rainforests
• Sustainability
• Green Jobs
• Livable Cities
• Renewables
• Clean Water, Air
• Healthy Children
In a single frame, and with surgical irony, the cartoonist has masterfully steered us to the question I have been asking myself and others for a long time, which is essentially, why are we not able to shift the dialog onto a productive level that leaves the polarization and bickering behind so we can just get started on the enormous task of cleaning up the mess we've been helping to make?
We don't have to reach some final, indisputable conclusion on the "climate" debate to know that there are plenty of good reasons to take steps to replace 18th and 19th century technologies and the polluting energy sources that have been fueling them.
The answer must reside somewhere deep in human nature. There seems to be an irresistible force of passion that makes us dig in our heels and refuse to budge when we feel strongly about something. In this case, it doesn't really matter if we're talking about those who view "climate change" or "global warming," as some prefer to refer to it, as the great challenge of our time or those who are absolutely convinced that it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
It seems that those who have taken a passionate stand either way are prepared to fight over this for as long as takes, and unfortunately, the fact that people in both camps seem determined to drive to an "all or nothing" resolution keeps getting in the way of potential progress on the things we could agree on.
Even the most hardcore climate skeptics don't try to make their case by denying or stating opposition to goals like those listed by the cartoonist, they just refuse to go there. At the same time, their counterparts, who are every bit as passionate in their insistence that mankind's activities are at the center of all the problems in the world, often appear to be pushing for absolute and immediate solutions with little or no willingness to explore common ground. The net result is an ongoing bitter conflict that is often stalled by distractions leaving those of us in the middle stranded and feeling like we can't do anything meaningful to influence the outcome.
I am personally convinced that we are indeed witnessing measurable levels of global climate change. I only make this statement based on personal observation and certainly not because I believe the reports of governments, including our own, or the findings of scientists I have never met. I have reached my conclusion because I have observed certain evidence with my own eyes. I've visited glaciers from Alaska to New Zealand that are receding at unprecedented and alarming rates. I have flown over millions of acres of America's western forests and seen the beetle kill that is resulting from milder winter temperatures to the detriment of not only the trees, but also virtually every species in that ecosystem.
What I have no way of verifying on my own is how much of this shift is attributable to the activities of the human species. I seriously doubt that it is the primary factor. Both sides of this debate agree that the scale and complexity of the Earth's atmosphere and its global climate have seen numerous dramatic shifts to one extreme or the other over time.
What I do know is that I have seen the contrast between the air in Beijing and other cities in the Northern Hemisphere with that of still pristine regions of the South Pacific. The calamity is there for anyone who is interested to see. I have also fished a variety of streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs throughout North America where the fish populations face collapse from human-caused pollution and where signs are posted to warn against consuming the fish that are there.
Put simply, we have used our one and only planetary home and all of its natural systems as a garbage dump of one kind or another for practically all of recorded human history. Sadly, the situation has only worsened over the last few centuries as we made industrial "advances" and as human population has swelled. We have treated it like a trash can and no matter how big the can is, it can only hold so much. We are reaching that point and before it's too late we need to revise our practices. It's time to clean up our act and "create a better world"—whether global warming is a hoax or not.
Ditch the Climate Change Debate by Ron Jones
A recent editorial cartoon that I ran across cleverly expressed a great deal of my own thoughts around the climate change debate. The cartoonist (Joel Pett, Lexington Herald-Leader) depicts an obviously unconvinced audience member at a presentation where benefits of clean energy are being displayed on the stage screen. The attendee is shown demanding an answer to a question similar to the following:
"What if it turns out that climate change is all a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"
The presenter he is questioning has a list of goals on the screen including:
• Energy Independence
• Preserve Rainforests
• Sustainability
• Green Jobs
• Livable Cities
• Renewables
• Clean Water, Air
• Healthy Children
In a single frame, and with surgical irony, the cartoonist has masterfully steered us to the question I have been asking myself and others for a long time, which is essentially, why are we not able to shift the dialog onto a productive level that leaves the polarization and bickering behind so we can just get started on the enormous task of cleaning up the mess we've been helping to make?
We don't have to reach some final, indisputable conclusion on the "climate" debate to know that there are plenty of good reasons to take steps to replace 18th and 19th century technologies and the polluting energy sources that have been fueling them.
The answer must reside somewhere deep in human nature. There seems to be an irresistible force of passion that makes us dig in our heels and refuse to budge when we feel strongly about something. In this case, it doesn't really matter if we're talking about those who view "climate change" or "global warming," as some prefer to refer to it, as the great challenge of our time or those who are absolutely convinced that it is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind.
It seems that those who have taken a passionate stand either way are prepared to fight over this for as long as takes, and unfortunately, the fact that people in both camps seem determined to drive to an "all or nothing" resolution keeps getting in the way of potential progress on the things we could agree on.
Even the most hardcore climate skeptics don't try to make their case by denying or stating opposition to goals like those listed by the cartoonist, they just refuse to go there. At the same time, their counterparts, who are every bit as passionate in their insistence that mankind's activities are at the center of all the problems in the world, often appear to be pushing for absolute and immediate solutions with little or no willingness to explore common ground. The net result is an ongoing bitter conflict that is often stalled by distractions leaving those of us in the middle stranded and feeling like we can't do anything meaningful to influence the outcome.
I am personally convinced that we are indeed witnessing measurable levels of global climate change. I only make this statement based on personal observation and certainly not because I believe the reports of governments, including our own, or the findings of scientists I have never met. I have reached my conclusion because I have observed certain evidence with my own eyes. I've visited glaciers from Alaska to New Zealand that are receding at unprecedented and alarming rates. I have flown over millions of acres of America's western forests and seen the beetle kill that is resulting from milder winter temperatures to the detriment of not only the trees, but also virtually every species in that ecosystem.
What I have no way of verifying on my own is how much of this shift is attributable to the activities of the human species. I seriously doubt that it is the primary factor. Both sides of this debate agree that the scale and complexity of the Earth's atmosphere and its global climate have seen numerous dramatic shifts to one extreme or the other over time.
What I do know is that I have seen the contrast between the air in Beijing and other cities in the Northern Hemisphere with that of still pristine regions of the South Pacific. The calamity is there for anyone who is interested to see. I have also fished a variety of streams, rivers, lakes, and reservoirs throughout North America where the fish populations face collapse from human-caused pollution and where signs are posted to warn against consuming the fish that are there.
Put simply, we have used our one and only planetary home and all of its natural systems as a garbage dump of one kind or another for practically all of recorded human history. Sadly, the situation has only worsened over the last few centuries as we made industrial "advances" and as human population has swelled. We have treated it like a trash can and no matter how big the can is, it can only hold so much. We are reaching that point and before it's too late we need to revise our practices. It's time to clean up our act and "create a better world"—whether global warming is a hoax or not.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Where are regulations regarding organic foods heading?
It's important for all of us to be aware that the USDA's process for certifying organic foods is constantly evolving. Already, the organics process has seen proposals to allow genetically engineered food and irradiated food within the scope of certified organic labeling. Proposals to allow sewage sludge in the cultivation of organic food have also been introduced. Thanks to widespread public involvement, including letter writing and in-person testimony, none of these proposals were adopted and certified organic food is still free from genetic engineering, irradiation, and sewage sludge. However, many changes will continue to be proposed. For example, much current debate is focused on a proposal to allow organic certification of fish and shellfish products, and the details of this process are still being discussed and formulated. For more information about current issues in organic labeling, or to become more involved in public comment opportunities related to organic regulations, you can visit the National Organics Program (NOP) website. The NOP Newsroom can be a good place to start to learn about recent notices and announcements related to proposed changes in the organic certification process.
George Mateljan
George Mateljan
Where can we find the best source of antioxidants?
There is only one place outside the body where we can count on finding the health-promoting combinations of antioxidants that are necessary for optimal health. That place is a balanced diet containing natural, whole, minimally processed and organically grown foods. The reason is simple. We need more than just vitamin E, vitamin C, beta-carotene, glutathione, or other single nutrients for our antioxidant health. We need all of the food components that provide natural colors and flavors to food, the flavonoids and carotenoids and other types of pigments that can only be found in whole natural foods. You cannot get a complete antioxidant team when you take a dietary supplement, no matter how high in quality. Nor can you get a complete antioxidant team when you eat processed foods with artificial flavors and colorings in place of natural flavonoids and carotenoids. It takes a whole, natural foods diet to provide you with genuine antioxidant teamwork. That's one reason I feel so strongly about the value of the World's Healthiest Foods.
George Mateljan
George Mateljan
Key Lime Pie -- in the raw :>
Okay. No way does this look like the traditional key lime pie. Well. The truth is, whenever I make these 'raw' recipes, the NEVER work out, or look like, how they're supposed to!
All that said, ladies and gentlemen, I am here to tell you that I have sneaked a nibble or two or three while preparing said raw key lime pie -- and it is scrumptious!
Crust: coconut, macadamia nuts, walnuts, sea salt, medjol dates
Filling: avocados, lime juice, honey, blueberries, kiwi
Crust is frozen for 20 min and then filled and then in freezer for at least 2 hours.
I will be tasting this later today, and I cannot wait. The flavors will be outstanding.
Visually though...not so much.
Graffiti Boys..
When you graffiti outside my office door like this...well...on some level I don't mind so much. :>
Friday, December 11, 2009
"Climategate"
December 10, 2009SummaryIn late November 2009, more than 1,000 e-mails between scientists at the Climate Research Unit of the U.K.'s University of East Anglia were stolen and made public by an as-yet-unnamed hacker. Climate skeptics are claiming that they show scientific misconduct that amounts to the complete fabrication of man-made global warming. We find that to be unfounded:* The messages, which span 13 years, show a few scientists in a bad light, being rude or dismissive. An investigation is underway, but there's still plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.* Some critics say the e-mails negate the conclusions of a 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but the IPCC report relied on data from a large number of sources, of which CRU was only one.* E-mails being cited as "smoking guns" have been misrepresented. For instance, one e-mail that refers to "hiding the decline" isn't talking about a decline in actual temperatures as measured at weather stations. These have continued to rise, and 2009 may turn out to be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. The "decline" actually refers to a problem with recent data from tree rings.
Factchecker.org
Factchecker.org
Thursday, December 10, 2009
What's the problem with refined grains?
When it comes to grains, most people also eat far too many refined grains. Extensive processing of grains can leave very little in the way of nutritional value. It can also leave grain products that are rich in the simpler carbohydrates and elevate blood sugar levels in a problematic way. Refined grain flours are usually defined in terms of "percent extraction." Wheat flour is 60% extraction when only 60% of the original whole grain remains in the flour, and the other 40% has been removed. Most of the wheat flour products in the United States have been made from 60% extraction flour. Unfortunately, over half of the original nutrients in whole wheat are lost from 60% extraction flour because extraction involves the removal of the germ and bran, which are the primary sites for nutrient storage in the grain. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that refined grain products cannot serve as the basis of a healthy diet.
George Matlin
George Matlin
Sunday, December 6, 2009
What type of cookware should I use for microwave cooking?
Pyrex, a special type of glass known as thermal shock resistant glass, is a cookware material we like, especially if you have decided to do microwave cooking. Pyrex is a fairly stable material that includes both boron and silicon, two minerals not present on the 2007 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) priority toxin list.
We are highly concerned about migration of plastics from containers into food. Therefore, we would suggest avoiding its use in cooking situations including in the microwave. (For the same reasons we would avoid using "boil-in-a-bag" type vegetables.)
The George Mateljan Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation with no commercial interests, is a new force for change to help make a healthier you and a healthier world.
We are highly concerned about migration of plastics from containers into food. Therefore, we would suggest avoiding its use in cooking situations including in the microwave. (For the same reasons we would avoid using "boil-in-a-bag" type vegetables.)
The George Mateljan Foundation, a not-for-profit foundation with no commercial interests, is a new force for change to help make a healthier you and a healthier world.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
New study finds synthetic musks in umbilical cord blood.
Today, Campaign for Safe Cosmetics founding member Environmental Working Group released a new study that found 232 chemical contaminants in umbilical cord blood samples from 10 newborn American babies. Among the findings: two synthetic musks, components of fragrance, were found in 7 of the 10 cord blood samples.
Artificial musks commonly added to fragrances and personal care products can be absorbed through skin or inhaled, and concentrate and persist in our bodies - so our many small exposures can add up fast. Synthetic musks have also been found in human breast milk and fatty tissues, and are ubiquitous in wastewater and rivers.
The cosmetics industry and other industries that use "fragrance" in their products use a whopping 9,000 tons of synthetic musk annually, despite the fact that little is known about the safety of these chemicals. Unfortunately, preliminary research raises concerns: musks may disrupt hormones and are toxic to aquatic life.
Because of a loophole in labeling law, the ingredients in "fragrance" are considered trade secrets, so companies don't have to tell us what's in scents - often dozens or even hundreds of synthetic chemical compounds like synthetic musks and other ingredients linked to harm.
Biomonitoring studies like this one make clear that chemicals - many of which have never been tested for long-term safety or are known to be harmful - used in everyday products are ending up in our bodies and in our ecosystem. At the same time, cancer, infertility, and behavioral and developmental illnesses linked to many of these chemicals of concern are on the rise.
As consumers and citizens, we can fight the fragrance loophole. Here are three ways you can make a difference:
Contact the manufacturer of a cosmetic product in your bathroom that lists "fragrance," "perfume" or "musk" on the ingredient label, and ask the maker to use non-toxic ingredients and fully disclose all ingredients on products labels. Click here for contact info, talking points and a short response form so you can let us how your conversation went!
This holiday season, choose gifts free of synthetic fragrance. Consult the list of companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, and use EWG's Skin Deep database to run an "advanced search" of products without synthetic fragrance.
Check out our DIY cosmetics recipes for creative, fresh gifts for you and yours!
Thank you for making a difference in 2009, whether you wrote a letter to a company or Congress, contacted the FDA or switched out your old products for safe alternatives. You're a vital part of our work for safer cosmetics and smarter laws that protect our health.
Artificial musks commonly added to fragrances and personal care products can be absorbed through skin or inhaled, and concentrate and persist in our bodies - so our many small exposures can add up fast. Synthetic musks have also been found in human breast milk and fatty tissues, and are ubiquitous in wastewater and rivers.
The cosmetics industry and other industries that use "fragrance" in their products use a whopping 9,000 tons of synthetic musk annually, despite the fact that little is known about the safety of these chemicals. Unfortunately, preliminary research raises concerns: musks may disrupt hormones and are toxic to aquatic life.
Because of a loophole in labeling law, the ingredients in "fragrance" are considered trade secrets, so companies don't have to tell us what's in scents - often dozens or even hundreds of synthetic chemical compounds like synthetic musks and other ingredients linked to harm.
Biomonitoring studies like this one make clear that chemicals - many of which have never been tested for long-term safety or are known to be harmful - used in everyday products are ending up in our bodies and in our ecosystem. At the same time, cancer, infertility, and behavioral and developmental illnesses linked to many of these chemicals of concern are on the rise.
As consumers and citizens, we can fight the fragrance loophole. Here are three ways you can make a difference:
Contact the manufacturer of a cosmetic product in your bathroom that lists "fragrance," "perfume" or "musk" on the ingredient label, and ask the maker to use non-toxic ingredients and fully disclose all ingredients on products labels. Click here for contact info, talking points and a short response form so you can let us how your conversation went!
This holiday season, choose gifts free of synthetic fragrance. Consult the list of companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, and use EWG's Skin Deep database to run an "advanced search" of products without synthetic fragrance.
Check out our DIY cosmetics recipes for creative, fresh gifts for you and yours!
Thank you for making a difference in 2009, whether you wrote a letter to a company or Congress, contacted the FDA or switched out your old products for safe alternatives. You're a vital part of our work for safer cosmetics and smarter laws that protect our health.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Labeling packaged food...
"When I shop these days, I can't help but notice the number of competing health logos on packaged foods. As you are lured to purchase "natural," "smart choice" or "high fiber" foods, their meanings have become fuzzy and unreliable. Labeling that was initially intended to aid consumers to make healthier food choices has turned into a nightmare of confusion and even distrust.
According to our Breakthrough News for this week, in the United States, health and nutrition statements on our prepackaged foods have never depended on genuine, overall food quality. It goes on to say that a kid's ready-to-eat cereal can contain over 2 teaspoons of sugar per cup, have sugar as its number one ingredient, and still claim "now provides fiber." A good example of this is the recent labeling of Froot Loops as nutritious enough to sport a big checkmark on the front of boxes signifying that choosing the cereal was indeed smart.
When people ask me what makes the World's Healthiest Foods so special, one of my first answers is "because they are nutrient-rich." That's why I was so heartened by the potential use of a new research tool developed by researchers at Nutrition Impact, which measures nutrient-richness and overall food quality to lead the way in providing reliable food labeling for consumers.
Nutrient-richness takes into consideration the number and quantity of nutrients in relation to the number of calories a food contains, so we are never just focusing on one nutrient. That's why a food such as romaine lettuce, which contains only 16 calories in a two cup serving but supplies a good, very good, or excellent source of almost 20 nutrients, is one of the most nutrient-rich of the World's Healthiest vegetables."
-- The George Mateljan Foundation
According to our Breakthrough News for this week, in the United States, health and nutrition statements on our prepackaged foods have never depended on genuine, overall food quality. It goes on to say that a kid's ready-to-eat cereal can contain over 2 teaspoons of sugar per cup, have sugar as its number one ingredient, and still claim "now provides fiber." A good example of this is the recent labeling of Froot Loops as nutritious enough to sport a big checkmark on the front of boxes signifying that choosing the cereal was indeed smart.
When people ask me what makes the World's Healthiest Foods so special, one of my first answers is "because they are nutrient-rich." That's why I was so heartened by the potential use of a new research tool developed by researchers at Nutrition Impact, which measures nutrient-richness and overall food quality to lead the way in providing reliable food labeling for consumers.
Nutrient-richness takes into consideration the number and quantity of nutrients in relation to the number of calories a food contains, so we are never just focusing on one nutrient. That's why a food such as romaine lettuce, which contains only 16 calories in a two cup serving but supplies a good, very good, or excellent source of almost 20 nutrients, is one of the most nutrient-rich of the World's Healthiest vegetables."
-- The George Mateljan Foundation
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
Zesty Cranapple
1/2 c cranberries - organic OF COURSE! Doh! A handfull of red grapes - better for you than the green ones, 1/2 lemon - well, I used bottled juice - sue me, 2 apples - ORGANIC.
Now does this not look GOOOOD? 206 calories, Vit A, D, E, folic acid, potassium, and a bunch of other stuff.
How you doin'?
George Mateljan Article - What does GMO mean?
"GMO" stands for "Genetically Modified Organisms," and in the case of food, it usually refers to foods which have been genetically engineered for reasons unrelated to health or nourishment. You may also see the term "GE foods" (which stands for "genetically engineered" foods) or terms like "genetically altered" or "genetically modified" or "genetically improved" to describe these foods.
The process of genetically modifying foods is very new to the world of agriculture. In 1994, there were zero acres of GE food crops in the entire United States. At present there are more than 100 million acres! The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy group headquartered in Washington, D.C., estimates that 70-75% of all grocery store products contain at least one genetically modified ingredient. You have almost certainly already consumed many GE foods, whether you knew it or not!
Uncertain health risks with GE foods
The health risks associated with GE foods have not been clearly identified. However, many scientists have speculated that these foods are more likely to trigger allergic reactions in some people. Additionally, they suggest that they may change the protein composition of foods in a way that could present problems for the body's immune, inflammatory, digestive, and cellular signaling systems.
GE soybeans and GE corn are of special concern
In addition, a 2004 survey conducted by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology determined that 45% of all corn, 85% of all soybeans, and 76% of all cotton produced in the U.S. were genetically engineered. This very high percentage of genetic engineering for corn and soybeans is alarming because corn and soybeans are processed into so many commonly used ingredients in processed and prepackaged foods.
For corn, of course, the most common processing product is HFCS, or high fructose corn syrup. This product is found in literally thousands of processed foods, including sodas, baked goods, and many other foods. Other processed food ingredients that often come from corn include corn syrup, corn syrup solids, malt, maltodextrin, maltose, maltol, ethyl maltol, malt syrup, mannitol, dextrose, dextrin, and polydextrose. Of course, corn starch, corn flour, and corn oil are also corn-based ingredients.
As the most common GE food in the U.S., soybeans can be even more difficult than corn to identify in processed and prepackaged foods. The list of processed food ingredients derived from soybeans is a long one and includes: hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), textured vegetable protein (TVP), textured soy protein (TSP), textured soy flour (TSF), lecithin, meat analogs, isolated soy protein, isolated vegetable protein, soy protein concentrate, and structured protein fiber (SPF). Of course, soy bran, soy fiber, soy nuts, soy oil, soy sauce, soy grits, soy meal are also made from soybeans.
Unless you stick with certified organic foods, you will need to avoid any products with the ingredients listed above if you want to minimize your risk of GE foods. There are simply too much GE corn and soybean crops being raised for you to be sure that your non-organic foods are "GE safe".
Organic will help you avoid GE foods
Since the National Organics Program forbids the genetic modification of foods to be certified as organic, you can go a long way in avoiding GE foods by purchasing organic. For example, a food that is certified as 100% organic cannot contain any of the ingredients listed above if those ingredients have been derived from genetically engineered corn or soy.
"Non-GMO" or ""GMO-free" on food labels
Unfortunately, no labeling laws for GE foods exist in the United States, even though England, France, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, China, Indonesia, and over 25 other countries require labeling of GE foods. (Some GE food crops are actually banned in many countries, including England, Japan, Brazil, Norway, India, and Thailand). In the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has generally discouraged the use of terms like "GMO-free" or "non-GMO" on food labels and has expressed concern about these terms as being misleading. From the FDA's perspective, any statement that implies superiority of a "GMO-free" food is misleading because they note that there is no scientific evidence to support any increased health risks associated with GE foods. While I agree that scientific studies are sadly lacking in this area, I also believe that GE foods can logically be expected to bring with them added health risks, and I would like to see all GE foods and non-GE foods clearly labeled for this reason. However, until such labeling is widely adopted, the only way to lower your GMO risks is to stick with certified organic foods. Fortunately, with the exception of water and fish, every single one of the World's Healthiest Foods is available as certified organic!
References
Center for Food Safety. (2008). Genetically engineered food. Campaign report available online at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm.
Fernandez-Cornejo J and Caswell M. (2006). The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-11) 36pp. Available online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB11/.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2004). Genetically Modified Crops in the United States. Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=17950
The process of genetically modifying foods is very new to the world of agriculture. In 1994, there were zero acres of GE food crops in the entire United States. At present there are more than 100 million acres! The Center for Food Safety, a non-profit public interest and environmental advocacy group headquartered in Washington, D.C., estimates that 70-75% of all grocery store products contain at least one genetically modified ingredient. You have almost certainly already consumed many GE foods, whether you knew it or not!
Uncertain health risks with GE foods
The health risks associated with GE foods have not been clearly identified. However, many scientists have speculated that these foods are more likely to trigger allergic reactions in some people. Additionally, they suggest that they may change the protein composition of foods in a way that could present problems for the body's immune, inflammatory, digestive, and cellular signaling systems.
GE soybeans and GE corn are of special concern
In addition, a 2004 survey conducted by the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology determined that 45% of all corn, 85% of all soybeans, and 76% of all cotton produced in the U.S. were genetically engineered. This very high percentage of genetic engineering for corn and soybeans is alarming because corn and soybeans are processed into so many commonly used ingredients in processed and prepackaged foods.
For corn, of course, the most common processing product is HFCS, or high fructose corn syrup. This product is found in literally thousands of processed foods, including sodas, baked goods, and many other foods. Other processed food ingredients that often come from corn include corn syrup, corn syrup solids, malt, maltodextrin, maltose, maltol, ethyl maltol, malt syrup, mannitol, dextrose, dextrin, and polydextrose. Of course, corn starch, corn flour, and corn oil are also corn-based ingredients.
As the most common GE food in the U.S., soybeans can be even more difficult than corn to identify in processed and prepackaged foods. The list of processed food ingredients derived from soybeans is a long one and includes: hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP), textured vegetable protein (TVP), textured soy protein (TSP), textured soy flour (TSF), lecithin, meat analogs, isolated soy protein, isolated vegetable protein, soy protein concentrate, and structured protein fiber (SPF). Of course, soy bran, soy fiber, soy nuts, soy oil, soy sauce, soy grits, soy meal are also made from soybeans.
Unless you stick with certified organic foods, you will need to avoid any products with the ingredients listed above if you want to minimize your risk of GE foods. There are simply too much GE corn and soybean crops being raised for you to be sure that your non-organic foods are "GE safe".
Organic will help you avoid GE foods
Since the National Organics Program forbids the genetic modification of foods to be certified as organic, you can go a long way in avoiding GE foods by purchasing organic. For example, a food that is certified as 100% organic cannot contain any of the ingredients listed above if those ingredients have been derived from genetically engineered corn or soy.
"Non-GMO" or ""GMO-free" on food labels
Unfortunately, no labeling laws for GE foods exist in the United States, even though England, France, Germany, New Zealand, Switzerland, China, Indonesia, and over 25 other countries require labeling of GE foods. (Some GE food crops are actually banned in many countries, including England, Japan, Brazil, Norway, India, and Thailand). In the United States, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has generally discouraged the use of terms like "GMO-free" or "non-GMO" on food labels and has expressed concern about these terms as being misleading. From the FDA's perspective, any statement that implies superiority of a "GMO-free" food is misleading because they note that there is no scientific evidence to support any increased health risks associated with GE foods. While I agree that scientific studies are sadly lacking in this area, I also believe that GE foods can logically be expected to bring with them added health risks, and I would like to see all GE foods and non-GE foods clearly labeled for this reason. However, until such labeling is widely adopted, the only way to lower your GMO risks is to stick with certified organic foods. Fortunately, with the exception of water and fish, every single one of the World's Healthiest Foods is available as certified organic!
References
Center for Food Safety. (2008). Genetically engineered food. Campaign report available online at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm.
Fernandez-Cornejo J and Caswell M. (2006). The First Decade of Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service, Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-11) 36pp. Available online at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB11/.
Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology. (2004). Genetically Modified Crops in the United States. Pew Charitable Trusts, Washington, D.C. Available online at: http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_detail.aspx?id=17950
Monday, November 2, 2009
Tomato Salad Express
Here's what you juice together: 2 tomatoes, 1/4 green pepper, handful of parsley and of spinach...and wheat grass - very cool.
Here's where you juice it...
Add a little Hemp powder and badda bing badda boom. This alone takes care of almost 5 of my required daily 10 fruits/vegetables. How you doin' so far?
And no, it's not a Heineken.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![My Honda Shadow VLX 650 [2005-2007]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nUCICQi5pJg/SIOGhMwVKKI/AAAAAAAAAAc/VS8N7KYXrKU/S220/99+VLX001.jpg)
![Naval Petty Officer 2nd Class - CRT [Veteran]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzi65mssFSAlTiuYJay3mcpYpzyJzGhKgBYXLDNBoKf6lmsmUroWupwjRHwQMRCuutRVWBh9-y4Yv6m6yIDt760SYJFmE843C4dU85agMX75LEO7b8sasUvcvJmsnY9u1HeJ7EYy_jb7GU/s150/adam+lincoln+mem.jpg)
