When Upton Sinclair wrote “The Jungle,” he intended to show the harsh conditions of poor immigrants working in the meat packing factories of Chicago. Published in 1906, his book ended up being one of the earliest catalysts for American food regulation. People were revolted by the unregulated food industry and the awful truth behind where their meat came from.  Sinclair’s book led to a public outcry, and many called for more regulations for the food industry. And for good reason–throughout American history up until that point there had never been any serious attempts to regulate the food industry. 

We now live in an age of big farms and monoculture. It used to be that most of the food you ate was grown or raised fairly close to where you lived. As technology and jobs changed, and the demand for meat grew, food began to be produced on a larger scale. Read on to learn more about the changing food culture and the concept of “food sovereignty.” 

Eating Local?

During President Theodore Roosevelt’s tenure, the U.S. began regulating food and drugs produced in the country with the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906. This act prohibited “misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs in interstate commerce.” This was regulated by the Bureau of Chemistry in the Department of Agriculture, which eventually became the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1930.

Today, food laws are still imperfect. But the American public is increasingly conscious of where and how food is produced. Debates regarding food production are happening all over the country. Most Americans eat three times a day. A 2011 study found that the average American eats roughly 1,996 pounds of food each year. With that much food at stake, it makes sense that people are concerned.

Recently in America there has been a push toward “eating local.” Many people want to go to farmers markets and buy their tomatoes and cabbage from the farmer who grew it. They want to buy their eggs from chickens that were raised in hen houses that they could visit, rather than from a place straight out of “Food Inc.” 

In short, people are more aware of where their food is coming from. And that is where “food sovereignty” comes in. It’s an issue that is starting to gain traction in the U.S. Those who advocate for food sovereignty feel that farming has become over regulated. The movement is global, and many farmers around the world are standing up for themselves and for food production as a whole.

What is Food Sovereignty?

La Vía Campesina, an international “peasant” movement, coined the term “food sovereignty” at the 1996 World Food Summit. The group defines it as such:

Food sovereignty is the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.

With the increased demand for locally-grown produce in America, it’s becoming more popular for farmers to want to sell their produce to their local communities. But it’s also important to note that outside of the U.S., food sovereignty takes on a much more important role. Hannah Wittman, Annette Desmarais, and Nettie Wiebe, authors of “Food Sovereignty: Reconnecting Food, Nature and Community,” wrote: 

The stunted growth and high mortality rates of hungry children and the ill health and lost potential of malnourished adults are clear and tragic results of the chronic food shortages suffered by an increasing number of people. A growing number of households and communities fear for tomorrow’s meals, even though there may be enough food for today.

Shifting more power to local farmers would increase the availability of food. And food would not have to travel as much, making it less costly and more likely to be fresh.

In the U.S., Maine Leads the Way

The U.S. has very structured regulations for farmers. One state is breaking away from this model. On June 16, Maine Governor Paul LePage signed LD 725, or An Act to Recognize Local Control Regarding Food Systems. This act is the first of its kind in the United States. It shifts power from the state to local municipalities. The Bangor Daily News described the rationale behind the law:

Supporters of food sovereignty want local food producers to be exempt from state licensing and inspections governing the selling of food as long as the transactions are between the producers and the customers for home consumption or when the food is sold and consumed at community events such as church suppers.

There were already about 20 municipalities in Maine that had their own food sovereignty laws. Now with this statewide law, municipalities that apply for food sovereignty will be granted more control. 

The law allows small farmers to sell food within their communities with fewer government regulations. Maine Rep. Craig Hickman enthusiastically embraced the passage of the law. In an interview with the Bangor Daily News, he said, “Food sovereignty means the improved health and well-being of the people of Maine by reducing hunger and increasing food self-sufficiency through improved access to wholesome, nutritious, and locally produced foods.”

According to a 2012 USDA census, Maine has some of the youngest farmers in the country. And the field is drawing in more and more young farmers, partially due to the growing demand for local produce. As more farmers embraced this lifestyle, and consumers demanded local produce, Maine decided to change the regulations a bit to accommodate them.

In 2013, many municipalities in Maine fought for food sovereignty. One of their complaints was about a new law that allowed small farms that sold less than $1,000 worth of chicken a year to slaughter chickens on their own farms rather than go to a slaughter house. The regulations it sought to change would require those farms to spend as much as $40,000 to be able to properly slaughter their chickens.

The Advantages of Food Sovereignty

Less regulations may give pause to the more cautious eater or the revolted reader who cannot get the images of “The Jungle” out of his or her head. But many local Maine representatives feel that this new act is a good thing for Maine. So what regulations are being repealed exactly? While the law states that food produced locally must still adhere to federal standards, these local farms do not require state licensing, nor do they have to go through state inspections of food produced, sold, and consumed locally.

The new law does not apply to every food producer and seller, however. Chain grocery stores and establishments selling large quantities of food must still adhere to the old laws. The new act is specifically designed for small farmers selling within their communities.

Betsy Garrold, the acting executive director of Food for Maine’s Future, felt that this will encourage many young and burgeoning farmers to enter the trade. She told the Bangor Daily News, “This means face-to-face transactions are legal if your town has passed a food sovereignty ordinance [and] you can sell food without excessive government regulations,” she said. “If we can feed ourselves, no one can push us around.”

Garrold felt that with the amount of farms in Maine, large and small, it is hard to make one law that regulates everyone equally. “Now if a small vegetable farmer wants to diversify their holdings and run a few meat birds, they can,” she said.

But Not Everyone is Onboard

Maine might be alone in its quest to deregulate farmers for a while. As of right now, no other states are moving to enact food sovereignty laws.

There are national food sovereignty groups, like the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance (USFSA). However, the group is more engaged in activism than writing laws. USFSA “works to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system,” according to its website.

And while other states do not seem to be following Maine any time soon, not even all Maine farmers are pleased with the new act. When Maine began allowing certain municipalities more sovereignty back in 2013, Kevin Poland, a local Maine farmer, was less than pleased.

“It has nothing to do with encouraging local farming,” Poland said in an interview with NPR back in 2013. “There’s plenty of that here. What there should be more encouragement of is food safety. The state of Maine has laws that work,” he added.

Perhaps this is why other states have not joined Maine in passing their own food sovereignty laws. With all of the criticism that the food industry faces, it could seem counterintuitive to try to ease regulations on those who provide us with our food.

Global Impact

While Maine may be the first state in the U.S. to enact a food sovereignty law, other global initiatives have been on the forefront of this movement for decades. La Vía Campesina (The Peasants’ Way) started in 1993 as a way to support small farmers. The group is now a huge global initiative that has been one of the largest advocates of food sovereignty. 

La Vía Campesina says on its website that it represents, “164 local and national organizations in 73 countries from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. Altogether, it represents about 200 million farmers.”

Most recently, the group supported a rally in Morogoro, Tanzania on June 23. The protesters felt that the government was not acting in the best interest of the Tanzanian people. In a statement on its website, La Vía Campesina said, “We know that our African elites in the public and private sectors have been for many years colluding in corruption with the evil transnational corporations which today represent the new face of imperialist neo-colonialism.”

Conclusion

Food sovereignty is a topic that is gaining traction around the world. Those fighting for it do so because they cannot comply with the regulations imposed by the government that are intended for larger farms. For small farmers selling food within their community, these regulations can be damaging. In America, it is less dire that we change our food sovereignty laws, but in other countries, the consequences are higher. Food shortages and government corruption are why farmers around the world want to take their food back into their own hands. 

Anne Grae Martin

Anne Grae Martin is a member of the class of 2017 University of Delaware. She is majoring in English Professional Writing and minoring in French and Spanish. When she’s not writing for Law Street, Anne Grae loves doing yoga, cooking, and correcting her friends’ grammar mistakes. Contact Anne Grae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Food Sovereignty: Shifting Control from the Government to Local Farmers? appeared first on Law Street.

While the federal government has often struggled to control drug usage, including drugs ingested via snorting like cocaine, it’s not often that officials have to make a call on snorting chocolate powder. But since Legal Lean, an Orlando-based business, recently created a product called Coco Loko, that’s exactly what the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may need to do.

The name Coco Loko is actually a play on Four Loko, an energy drink and alcohol mix that was banned in 2010 and deemed a public health concern. Coco Loko shares plenty of similarities with its namesake, including the energy drink aspect. The fine, brown cacao powder contains taurine and guarana, which were both identified as dangerous substances in Four Loko. The energy-boosting benefits are another commonality between the two products, Legal Lean founder Nick Anderson said.

Anderson said that snorting the powder creates “almost like an energy-drink feeling, like you’re euphoric but also motivated to get things done.” The effects normally last between 30 minutes and one hour, Anderson told the Washington Post. The product, which hit shelves in June, is being marketed as a drug-free, non-addictive way to get a buzz and an energy boost.

An important distinction for the curious is that cacao powder is the purest, least processed form of chocolate while cocoa powder is the refined powder commonly found in American stores, according to One Green Planet.

Legal Lean and Anderson first became interested in developing the product after learning of the trend that was beginning in Europe. The mixture was popular in European nightclubs, culinary institutions, and even among cyclists, according to Daily Mail. Anderson said that while he was skeptical at first, he tried snorting powder and thought “this is the future right here.”

Soon after, Anderson invested $10,000 to create his own version and spent the next 10 months searching and testing for the right recipe. By June, Anderson had the right mixture and Coco Loko was on the shelves even without approval from the FDA up to this point. One tin of powder, which contains 10 servings, sells for $24.99, according to the Washington Post.

One issue that the FDA faces is that this is uncharted territory; no one really knows the risks of snorting cacao powder, Dr. Andrew Lane, director of the Johns Hopkins Sinus Center told the Washington Post. Lane expanded:

There are a few obvious concerns. First, it’s not clear how much of each ingredient would be absorbed into the nasal mucus membranes. And, well, putting solid material into your nose — you could imagine it getting stuck in there, or the chocolate mixing with your mucus to create a paste that could block your sinuses.

A spokesman for the FDA said the agency would need to “evaluate the product labeling, marketing information, and/or any other information pertaining to the product’s intended use” before making a decision. So, for now, the product can be sold even without FDA approval.

Concerns also circulated that snorting the powder could lead customers to try other drugs, but Lane said he isn’t particularly worried about that. The FDA has not decided if, or how, it will regulate consumption. Since the product is comprised of mostly chocolate, obviously a legal food, the powder may be challenging to federally regulate, according to U.S. News and World Report. 

Sales have increased in recent months according to Alex P. of Exclusive Distributors, which helps spread the product nationwide. “It’s not flying off the shelves or anything, but people are definitely curious,” Alex, who did not release his last name, told the Washington Post. Anderson’s brother, a rapper who goes by Bezz Believe, claims to have helped popularize the product by his own usage and its appearance in his music videos.

For now, snorting the cacao powder is more of a silly niche than the fad that swept Europe over the past year. Its popularity remains minimal, but interest has grown in Houston and Atlanta, according to the New York Post. Now that an American-based product has been introduced into the market, popularity could increase. As popularity increases, more attention will be paid to how (and if) the FDA opts to regulate the product.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Snorting Cacao Powder Become Popular? The FDA May Need to Decide appeared first on Law Street.

For many families in the United States, hunger can be a daily struggle. According to Feeding America, in 2015, about 13 percent of households were food insecure. In total, 42.2 million Americans lived in food insecure households, including 13.1 million children. There are also concerns that many lower-income Americans are overweight or obese–there is plenty of scientific evidence to suggest that low-income children are more likely to be overweight or obese than children in higher-income households. One concept that gets talked about a lot when it comes to hunger and health in the United States is the idea of a “food desert.” But what is a food desert, where are they, and what impact do they have on food insecurity?

What Exactly is a Food Desert?

While there are a number of different definitions that can be applied to the concept of a food desert, it’s generally defined as an area in which it is difficult to find fresh fruit, vegetables, and other “whole” foods that when combined, contribute to a well-balanced diet. In many cases, nearby supermarkets aren’t easily accessible by public transportation, and oftentimes, the residents don’t have access to cars. Essentially, a food desert just means an area in which it is difficult to come by wholesome and nutritious food.

Food deserts are usually located in lower-income areas, often neighborhoods in which most residents are people of color. According to the Food Empowerment Project, a non-profit that works to provide food to low income areas, wealthy areas have almost three times as many supermarkets as lower-income areas. And neighborhoods that are predominately white have four times as many supermarkets as majority black neighborhoods.

What’s a Food Swamp?

In addition to the concept of a food desert, you may hear the term “food swamp” thrown around occasionally. A food swamp is usually defined as an area where there is access to healthy food, but there is easier access to unhealthy foods, like junk food and fast food.

The concepts of food desert and swamp are closely related. In fact, there are arguments that “food swamp” is a more accurate term than food desert altogether, because many lower-income neighborhoods have plenty of fast food restaurants and convenience stores that carry unhealthy foods.

Where Are Food Deserts Located? 

There are multiple measures that can be used to determine whether or not a place is a “food desert.”

Redfin, for example, determined food deserts by calculating the percentage of people in a given city who can walk to a grocery store within five minutes. Using those metrics applied to 2014 data, the five American cities with the lowest percentage of people who can walk to a grocery store in five minutes are, in this order: Indianapolis at 5 percent; Oklahoma City at 5 percent, Charlotte at 6 percent, Tuscon at 6 percent, and Albuquerque at 7 percent. In contrast, the five American cities with the highest percentage of food access within five minutes were New York City at 72 percent, San Francisco at 59 percent, Philadelphia at 57 percent, Boston at 45 percent, and Washington D.C. at 41 percent.

That’s not to say that all food deserts exist in cities. In fact, rural areas are hard hit as well, although they need to be classified slightly differently. The metric usually applied to rural food deserts is if there’s no grocery store within 10 miles of a high-population area. In some rural areas, this is exacerbated by population shifts, as more people are moving to urban and suburban areas. When people move out of an area, grocery stores close, sometimes creating food deserts.

And certain areas are harder hit than others–for example, many Native American reservations fall under the definition of food deserts. Navajo Nation is almost 30,000 square miles, but only has 10 grocery stores. A study conducted by the Diné Policy Institute concluded that “a majority of participants from the communities represented in this study travel at least 155 miles round trip, while others regularly drive up to 240 miles to access foods.”

In 2011, the United States Department of Agriculture created an online, interactive map tool that measures food deserts across the country. The tool uses the following definition to measure what a food desert is:

A food desert is a low-income census tract where either a substantial number or share of residents has low access to a supermarket or large grocery store. ‘Low income’ tracts are defined as those where at least 20 percent of the people have income at or below the federal poverty levels for family size, or where median family income for the tract is at or below 80 percent of the surrounding area’s median family income. Tracts qualify as ‘low access’ tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles).

According to then-Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, the tool is intended to:

Help policy makers, community planners, researchers, and other professionals identify communities where public-private intervention can help make fresh, healthy, and affordable food more readily available to residents. With this and other Web tools, USDA is continuing to support federal government efforts to present complex sets of data in creative, accessible online format.

You can check out the tool for yourself here.

How Can the Problem of Food Deserts Be Solved?

There have been a lot of proposed solutions for food deserts. One prominent figure working to eliminate food deserts is former First Lady Michelle Obama, who made it one of the primary focuses of her activism. The Obama Administration put forth the solution of funding and equipping grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods, as well as providing financing for other options for healthy food, like farmers markets and co-ops.

There have been other, more unique solutions proposed as well. In some places, volunteers work to transport healthy food that would otherwise be disposed of from grocery stores in other areas. Some areas have taken to promoting urban farming and community gardens to combat food deserts. There are also efforts to put healthier, whole foods into already-existing institutions, like introducing more produce options into convenience stores and neighborhood corner shops.

Do Food Deserts Actually Need to be “Solved?”

There are also questions of whether food deserts are actually the issue, or at the very least the whole issue. There’s an argument to be made that obesity and poor nutrition aren’t necessarily caused by a lack of access to whole food, but rather issues with people’s shopping and eating habits.

Some research indicates that the increased presence of supermarkets in food deserts doesn’t do much to improve the shopping choices that locals make. In addition to a lack of education about nutrition, other factors go into play, like convenience, habit, the fact that unhealthy food is sometimes the cheapest, and strong advertising pushes from junk food producers.

As a result, some efforts to counter food deserts have focused on improving nutrition education. For example, there is a preschool in Memphis, Tennessee, that works with its students, many of whom live in food desert areas, to teach them the importance of a healthy diet from a young age.

Conclusion

Food deserts are such a fluid concept that it’s difficult to pinpoint exactly what they are, where they are, and what exactly they mean for the American population. Some argue that food deserts are a myth, and that our concentration should be focused on providing more nutrition education, not more choices of shopping venues. But one thing that is certain is that the rates of hunger and obesity in the United States–one of the richest countries in the world–are downright unacceptable, and food deserts are one concept that will continue to be brought up to combat those concerning trends.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is a Food Desert? appeared first on Law Street.

If you’ve ever been on a road trip in the Mid-Atlantic or Florida, you’ve likely stopped at a Wawa for gas, snacks, or made-to-order fast food. In certain states, love for Wawa is even cult-like. But now, Wawa devotees are seeing their favorite rest stop destination in the news, as the chain has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in federal court against a Paterson, New Jersey food store called DaWa.

According to DaWa’s owner, Mike Han, the name is based on the Korean phrase “everyone is welcome.” He has owned the store for a few years, and was shocked by the lawsuit. He told NJ.com “I was laughing when I saw the lawsuit. The issue makes no sense at all.”

The lawsuit claims that customers will be confused by the names, and mistake DaWa for Wawa, and Wawa has put a lot of work into its reputation. The lawsuit reads:

The WAWA mark receives significant unsolicited media coverage and has been seen and heard in movies and television shows, such as the popular sitcom The Goldbergs, as well as periodicals such as Harvard Business Review, where a case study featured Wawa as a strong brand with a noted and devoted following.

The fonts on the logos do look similar. And DaWa’s sign has a leaf over its name, while Wawa has a goose. The goose symbolizes the fact that the convenience store chain was named after a Native American word for Canadian Geese.

Wawa vs. Dawa: Convenience store chain sues store over name
??? https://t.co/ECet6kAzUz

— thaiparampil (@thaiparampil) February 4, 2017

Wawa has gone after companies that had similar names to it before. According to Philly.com writer Michael Boran:

In the late 1990s in Lehigh County, a judge ordered a store named ‘Haha’ to change its name after Wawa filed a suit. Haha’s owner relented, but said after the ruling: ‘We only lost the court battle. We won the war. Everybody knows we’re here.’

In Florida, Wawa also sued in 2014 to order a restaurant called ‘Wawa Curry Taste of India’ to change its name. A judge sided with Wawa, and the restaurant changed its name to ‘Wava Taste of India.’

We’ll have to see if Wawa is as successful this time.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wawa Sues Convenience Store Named DaWa appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. has a humongous surplus of cheese. So big that every man, woman, and child in the country would have to grab an extra three pounds and finish that before the end of the year to work through it. The 1.2 billion pounds of cheese sitting in storage are not even the issue. Surplus meat, poultry, milk, and other dairy products are flooding the food market.

The glut of cheese on the shelves has caused prices to drop, which is great for most of us consumers who love a good block of cheddar or ball of mozzarella, but not so great for the dairy farmers. The revenue from dairy sales has dropped 35 percent over the past two years, causing the USDA to announce it will spend $20 million on purchasing surplus cheese to help farmers out.

Good news for the nation’s dairy producers & families in need: @USDA purchasing $20 million of cheese for food banks & pantries across U.S.

— Amy Klobuchar (@amyklobuchar) October 12, 2016

So why this huge agriculture surplus? Two years ago the international market was hot and prices high. Due to an excess amount of grains on the market, farmers felt confident in buying more cattle since the feed was really cheap. Production of meat and dairy products skyrocketed but unfortunately coincided with the rising value of the dollar. So international buyers were deterred from buying American products, which caused the products to pile up, and the prices to go down.

Some farmers can’t even get rid of the milk by giving it away but have to dump it in lakes–as much as tens of millions of gallons, according to the Wall Street Journal. Sadly many farms are also going out of business. In California alone, 53 dairy farms closed down during the first half of the year.

The U.S. government has a long history of supporting local farmers when prices collapse, by buying a ton of dairy products and simply putting them somewhere else. This program was abandoned in 2012 but now the USDA buys food and donates it to food banks, which could at least help the farmers a little bit. The USDA also has paid 11.2 million to the Dairy Margin Protection Program, a type of subsidized insurance for dairy farmers.

Environmentalists and others have criticized the USDA’s measures, saying it is wasteful and financially not durable. Governments purchasing excess products just to throw them away might affect the economic market in negative ways, even if it is a small contribution. What is the point of letting that much food go to waste when there obviously is not that high of a demand for it?

But one other reason for the diary glut is that adults are not really made to drink milk. Humans are the only species that can drink milk in adulthood, but many of us still struggle with that, since our bodies are not made to digest the sugar in it. Scientists say it is a weird and unnatural genetic adaptation that allows some of us to tolerate lactose.

There’s also the environmental argument that cows produce methane, which is actually a huge contributor to global warming, so the government should not be encouraging raising more cows and making the situation worse. “It’s outrageous that the government continues to prop up the dairy industry and the wasteful pollution caused by year after year of surplus,” said Stephanie Feldstein from Center for Biological Diversity in a statement.

Clearly dairy farmers have another view on the whole controversy. Overall, milk drinking has declined in the country lately for various reasons, so the future is looking tough for the dairy farms. Unless America takes after the French and starts eating cheese with every meal…and would that really be a bad thing?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Is America Going To Do With 1.2 Billion Pounds Of Surplus Cheese? appeared first on Law Street.

In some ways, the more urbanized an area is the greater potential it has to be sustainable. Public transport becomes readily available, reducing the need for individually owned cars, and the closer together things are the easier it is to walk from place to place. However, while grocery stores and restaurants may be close by to customers, more often than not the food that sustains them comes from outside of the community, sometimes from hundreds of miles away.

When calculating the carbon footprint of a suburb or a city, it’s important to keep in mind that the distance food delivery trucks travel to keep an area well-fed can be a serious obstacle to any community’s sustainability. This problem gave birth to the locavore movement, which has been steadily growing in popularity throughout America. Locavores attempt to get their food as close as possible to where they live, which has the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, supporting local farmers, and ensuring that one’s food hasn’t been treated with pesticides or raised with hormones.

One result of locavorism is the urban agriculture movement, which strives to utilize local property for small scale farming. Urban agriculture can manifest in a variety of ways in both suburban and city environments but it has been vehemently opposed in many areas throughout the country. However, the movement has serious potential to help increase sustainability in communities around the country.

“Roof allotment III” courtesy of David Barrie via Flickr

Suburban Lawn Farms

The modern American suburban home typically has a small front lawn, which is kept mowed and watered for aesthetic purposes. However, added up throughout the nation, these lawns make up a huge amount of underutilized, farmable land. Homeowners in states all over the country are starting to realize the potential of this land, and are growing edible gardens in their front yards. The average suburban property won’t generate a yield that’ll provide for an entire family’s calorie requirements, however, they can dramatically contribute to a household’s vegetable needs. This has the environmental benefit of reducing a family’s dependence on produce that comes through long supply chains and also encourages a healthy diet.

Edible gardens actually require about half as much water to maintain as a traditional lawn and prevent the exhaust fumes from lawnmowers, which are exceptionally polluting machines due to their unregulated and highly hazardous fuel contents. Furthermore, if you cultivate your edible garden without pesticides and fertilizers (which would generally be unnecessary in small scale agriculture) then you prevent a host of chemicals from being picked up by rainwater and delivered into local water sources. Depending on the amount of space in your lawn, it may also be possible to raise smaller livestock animals, such as chickens and rabbits, which generally don’t require very much space to take care of. If an entire community bands together and adopts this model of living, it can dramatically reduce the area’s carbon footprint, conserve water, and strengthen community bonds.

Urban Agriculture: Rooftops, Windows, and Empty Lots

In an urban setting, there’s no such potential for lawns to be directly repurposed into gardens, so city dwellers have to pursue more creative pathways. While the average person who lives in an apartment doesn’t own that property, anyone with a window facing steady sunlight can grow small scale produce hanging out of their windows. This is the premise behind the idea of vertical gardening, which seeks to make use of all the surface area we have built vertically as a source of nutrition and as a sink for carbon.

Theoretically, high-rise apartment buildings have created an abundance of additional land by building walls that take up more surface area than the original width and length of the plot of land they were built upon. This increases the potential for food development, although produce that requires high sun exposure can only be grown near windows and may require heavy watering. However, it’s just as possible to grow produce on vertically stacked beds in any apartment and in any house, though it may require additional light to grow healthily if plants can’t be exposed to a natural light source. Growing mushrooms may also be a good choice for indoor gardening because they require little to no light and provide strong sources of protein.

Rooftop gardens are another way to produce a significant agricultural yield since the area of a building’s roof is generally the same as the land taken away on the ground by its construction. While you can easily cover a roof with potted plants, it’s also possible to actually build a garden directly on a rooftop, equipped with soil layers, and drainage and irrigation systems. One of the major obstacles to these “intensive” rooftop gardens is that architecturally, there are limits to what a roof can hold. Soil, especially when saturated with water, can be extremely heavy and can be a serious burden on what a building can hold. When designing a rooftop garden it’s important to take into account the exact weight that your building can handle and not to exceed that. Other concerns include the potential safety risks involved in rooftop gardening.

The top of urban buildings are almost always built of impervious surfaces that cause rainwater to rapidly pour off, which can also lead to flooding and may carry contaminants into water sources. When rainwater encounters vegetation, it dramatically decreases the speed of runoff and risk of flooding, and may even filter water as it moves downward. Rooftop gardens also have the benefit of blocking roofs from sun exposure. Black asphalt absorbs heat, creating the Urban Heat Island Effect, which causes cities to reach uncomfortably warm temperatures, especially in the top floors of apartments. The canopy offered by rooftop gardens has a cooling effect that can both increase comfort and decrease air conditioning expenses.

Empty lots also provide ample space with which to grow gardens and to aesthetically improve an area. Empty lots have the unique feature of being non-exclusive gardens, unlike window or rooftop agriculture. A local community can cooperatively participate in a lot garden, which can strengthen community bonds as well as provide local produce.

“Urban Agriculture at Erdos Eco-City” courtesy of SuSanA Secretariat via Flickr

Victory Gardens

While the concept of edible gardens may sound strange and novel, it’s not a completely new concept. In World War II the lack of labor and transportation difficulties severely cut off food supply chains, so the government proposed the idea of “Victory Gardens.” Victory gardens encouraged citizens to raise as much produce and livestock as they could as part of their patriotic duty as Americans. Backyards and empty lots were converted into small farms and even city rooftops were covered with whatever could be grown on them. A huge number of Americans banded together and an estimated 20 million victory gardens were created. Altogether these gardens produced between 9 to 10 million tons of produce, equivalent to the amount of commercially produced vegetables at the time. This impressive yield serves as a powerful example of the impact the same practices could have today. So what’s stopping America from achieving the same results again?

Obstacles to Urban Agriculture

Many states have laws against owning livestock such as chickens, goats, and beehives on private property. Suburban communities across America also have made objections to edible gardens, claiming that they hurt the aesthetics of a neighborhood. Farmland can be considered unclean and a symbol of lower class status. Many believe that suburban gardening will decrease the property value of surrounding houses. States like Iowa, Florida, and Louisiana have written laws banning backyard gardening and require lawns to be regularly maintained; countless city and town governments have made similar mandates.

Apartment building owners may have objections to vertical gardening for similar aesthetic reasons. Rooftop gardens are one of the most significant ways to impact urban agriculture, but their existence also largely depends on the wishes of the building owners. Rooftop gardens are highly complex and require large amounts of maintenance. Many people may not want to invest the time and resources into actualizing their existence. There’s also an ongoing debate on whether rooftop space would be better utilized with solar panels since the tops of tall buildings provide some of the best access to solar energy. As for empty lot gardens, it’s often the case that just because an area is abandoned, that doesn’t mean it’s publicly accessible. Many open city lots may be boarded or fenced up to prevent people from interfering with the area. In some places this has led to movement of “guerilla gardening,” that is, throwing projectiles made of seeds wrapped in clay over fences. These vegetable “bombs” protect the seed long enough for it to sprout and draw nutrients, encouraging vegetation growth in otherwise inaccessible areas.

Beyond community opposition and technical difficulties, it’s also just true that only a small percentage of people are interested in urban agriculture. America is a very different place now than it was during World War II and we have nowhere near the food insecurity we previously did. The ethos of patriotism that inspired American citizens to grow food for the sake of the country’s stability is no longer in effect, and many people simply don’t see the benefits of urban agriculture. Ideally, Americans could regain the desire to grow their own food now in the interest of environmentalism. However, as large as our grocery stores are fully stocked, it is fairly unlikely that the urban agriculture movement will truly grow huge.

“New crops” courtesy of Linda N. via Flickr

Resources

About News: Origin of the Word Locavore

Chicago Department of Environment: A Guide to Rooftop Gardening

EarthEasy: Lawn Care Chemicals: How Toxic Are They?

Guardian Liberty Voice: Personal Gardening and Farming are Becoming Illegal

Hofstra University: Transport and Sustainability

Living History: Farming in the 1940s

Mother Earth News: Grow Your Own Mushrooms

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Rethinking Your Front Yard: Cities Make Room for Urban Farms

People Powered Machines: Cleaner Air: Gas Mower Pollution Facts

Resilience: Why Our Food is so Dependent on Oil

Seattle Urban Farm Company: Suburban Front Yard Farm

TakePart: Leave Your Lawn for Life on the Urban Farm

Urban Gardens Web: Growing Free Food and Community in Front Yard Farms

The Washington Post: “Guerilla Gardeners” Spread Seeds of Social Change

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Promise of Urban Agriculture appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look.

The Economy

Things are looking relatively good for Portland’s economy. It’s been dubbed a hub of entrepreneurship, with a hot startup scene. In addition, major corporations including Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Intel have their largest campuses in the Portland metro area. Portland’s major industries–software, athletic and outdoor products, advanced manufacturing, and green building and technology–promise to be consistently strong fields in the years to come.

Portland also boasts a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the United States, a higher median household income, and a very well-educated population.

Food Scene

Portland’s food scene is consistently ranked as one of the best in the U.S. The city has also been ranked as one of the most affordable U.S. cities when it comes to good cuisines–great news for any aspiring foodies who are in law school or pre-law and don’t want to break the bank. There’s lots of great niche food there too–from great local craft brews to vegetarian and vegan selections.

Check out this feature below on Portland’s innovative food carts for a snapshot of the city’s food scene:

The Population

Portland has seen a huge increase in population growth over the last few years. Portland had the 15th largest metro-area population growth in 2013-2014 (out of the top 50 largest metro areas.) With a population now at 2.35 million, Portland saw 33,500 new residents move into its metro area borders from 2013-2014 alone. Nearly half of those new residents came from different areas of the country, and another 15 percent are international transplants. That kind of wide breadth of transplants is sure to lead to a mix of cultures and voices.

Ted Reid, who works on Metro Planning in the area, explained:

This population growth speaks to the attractiveness of our region’s communities as places to live and work. With two-thirds of the growth coming from people moving here from elsewhere, this is right in line with our long-term forecast. The challenge that we have is to improve people’s quality of life as the population grows. More than ever, there’s a need to plan ahead.

Sustainability and Focus on the Environment

Portland is all about sustainability. Take, for example, the commuting scene in Portland. Portland has a fantastic public transit system, and it’s one of the most bike-friendly cities in the nation. From 2000-2014, the number of workers in Portland who commute by bike jumped from 1.8 percent to 6.1 percent. According to the League of American Bicyclists, Portland was the city with the highest number of bike commuters in 2013.

Portland also extends its focus on sustainability to the food scene, which in addition to being fantastic (see above) has a big commitment to using locally-sourced ingredients. Portland has standout green policies and follow-through: the city’s recycling rate is almost 60 percent, which is pretty impressive compared to the nationwide rate of 34.1 percent. The city-wide composting program is also unique and shows commitment to environmental responsibility.

And if you’re rolling your eyes about the fact that you already knew about Portland’s sustainability track record from the show “Portlandia,” that’s alright, because Portland’s sustainability chief Susan Anderson admits that the show draws some inspiration from real life. She said about Portlandia:

I always say it’s less of a parody and more of a biography. Our [former] mayor is the mayor’s assistant [on the show]. What’s interesting are the parts that [make] people in other cities think, ‘Aw, I wish we were that place.’ It’s not the over-the-top, goofy parts, but the human-scale part of Portland. It’s really walkable and there are restaurants on the corners and there are food carts everywhere. The air and water are generally very clean. You can recycle everything. Portlandia is a parody but a lot of those things are actually normal here.

The Legal Field

Portland’s legal scene will see new challenges in coming years–including an attempt to regulate the burgeoning marijuana market, now that Oregon has legalized it. While the legal market in Portland isn’t necessarily as robust as other parts of the U.S., a large pool of practical training opportunities are available for law school students while they’re still studying. For example, there’s the Oregon Justice Resource Center, which worked to start a new branch of the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project works to free those who have been wrongfully convicted. The OJRC allows law students to provide attorneys with research and assistance on death penalty cases.

Portland is also a center of change and growth in business that may be reflected in the legal field in years to come. There’s been a rise in IP and patent work, probably tied to the fact that Portland is a leading tech hub–its tech talent growth has outpaced Silicon Valley’s. Other of Portland niches, such as sustainability and food ethics, have also found a way to shine within Portland’s legal market. For example, Lewis & Clark Law recently hosted a forum to discuss food law. It’s a revolutionary and developing facet of law that promises to grow as Americans become concerned about the ethics of eating. Another field being pioneered in Portland is Animal Law, as the Center for Animal Law Studies is located there. Its annual Animal Law Conference  tasks itself to take on “cutting-edge global animal law issues including protecting animals in their native countries; international marine mammal challenges; animal testing outside the US; factory farming worldwide; animals in constitutions; litigation and legislation updates; and much more.”

So, if you’re thinking about a change, why not check out Portland? There’s a lot it can offer.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

A recent report from several environmental consumer advocacy groups graded of 25 of the leading fast food restaurants on the use of antibiotics in the meat they use, and for anyone concerned with the use of antibiotics in the food supply the results are illuminating. The report yielded some surprising ratings for America’s most popular fast food restaurants, giving only two an A grade.

We often hear about the use of things like antibiotics, hormones, and other additives in our food, but not everyone knows exactly what effects they have on our health. Read on to learn more about what’s in your food and what’s being done to make sure everything we consume is healthy.

 Antibiotics

When most people think about antibiotics the first thing that comes to mind is the medicine you get for strep throat or ear infections, so how are antibiotics important in terms of what we eat? The answer lies at the beginning of the food production, when farmers raise livestock for food.

The purpose of antibiotics is to kill harmful bacteria, which is important for both humans and for animals in the food supply. The problem is that they do not necessarily kill all the bacteria. For example, they may kill 99 out of 100 bacteria cells. However, the one percent that survives is immune to the antibiotic and reproduces. Over time, the resistant bacteria can reproduce, making the antibiotic no longer effective, which mean that a stronger medicine is needed to kill the bacteria. Resistant bacteria may also be transmitted to humans during consumption, which can lead to significant health concerns. The growing population of resistant bacteria could pose a significant health risk as antibiotics become less and less effective.

Farmers treat their animals with antibiotics for several reasons, but most importantly they do it because they want to keep the animals healthy. The use of antibiotics has also led to larger and heavier animals, which also means more profit. The central issue with the use of antibiotics in livestock is the fact that they are used when they are not actually needed. While few argue that antibiotics should never be used on animals, the use of “sub-therapeutic” doses, which are given when an animal is not sick is what most people have a problem with. Over time, these doses lead to resistant bacteria, which may be transferred to humans when consuming meat.

FDA regulations instruct farmers to use antibiotics only when an animal is sick or if there is an unusually high risk of disease, but that is not always the case. According to the Friends of the Earth and National Resource Defense Council mentioned above, 70-80 percent of the antibiotics used in the United States are given to animals. The report found that 20 of the top 25 fast food chains received a failing grade for their antibiotics policies.

Hormones

Like antibiotics, hormones are used to make animals bigger and stronger. But the hormones contained in the meat that people eat is passed along to humans as well. The FDA approves and regulates all hormones that are used in food production. The amounts allowed in food are determined by the FDA through research and are supposed to be well below the levels that naturally occur in the human body, thereby preventing any negative effects.

When it comes to hormones, there are a lot of gray areas in terms of their health effects. The two largest concerns associated with their use are a possible increased risk of cancer and the early onset of puberty in children. Existing studies suggest that lifetime exposure to hormones like estrogen can be linked to greater risk of cancer, and hormones previously used in animals have actually been tied to cancer risk. Diethylstilbestrol (DES), was a used in the 1960s and was connected to heightened risk of certain forms of cancer, but DES use ended after this connection was discovered. The amount of estrogen present in food is significantly lower than levels that naturally occur in our bodies. Currently, there is not sufficient evidence to draw a clear connection between growth hormone use in animals and an increased risk of cancer. Hormones given to animals are essential for growth and development, and the FDA regulates them to ensure that their presence in our food remains at safe levels. According to the FDA:

People are not at risk from eating food from animals treated with these drugs because the amount of additional hormone following drug treatment is very small compared with the amount of natural hormones that are normally found in the meat of untreated animals and that are naturally produced in the human body.

One issue that has a stronger connection to the use of hormones in the food supply is the early onset of puberty in children. On average, children have been starting puberty earlier than in the past, which some scientists have linked at least in part to the presence of hormones in food. While food still has relatively low levels of these hormones, their mere presence can cause children to reach puberty earlier. Although studies have found a connection, the use of hormones, like most many food-related health issues, still requires further research to clarify the link.

Pesticides

While antibiotics and hormones are designed to fatten animals, pesticides serve a similar purpose for fruits and vegetables. Pesticides do not increase the size of fruits or vegetables, but they do help ensure their survival from threats such as insects or weeds. They also kill potentially harmful organisms such as mold or fungus which can grow on foods.

Due to the widespread use of such chemicals on most foods the EPA and similar organizations in other countries have set tolerances for the amount allowed in foods. These tolerances are set after conducting risk assessments, which look at the potential health risks of individual pesticides. Once the tolerance has been set, it is then enforced by the USDA and FDA, or a corresponding agency in another nation. Yet several questions remain about the use of pesticides as well as their effects on humans and the environment. Pesticides are not allowed to be used on foods until they have gone through an assessment and they are also occasionally re-evaluated to make sure the set tolerance is appropriate. Re-evaluating pesticides is the primary way to address issues with tolerances and new information about health effects.

Preservatives

Preservatives, like other food additives, are in foods to serve a purpose beyond increasing profits, but they also come with their own risks. Generally speaking, the purpose of preservatives are to make food last longer and prevent rotting.

While preservatives help keep things fresh, they may also harm the people who ingest them. A recent study by immunologists at Georgia State University found that pesticides can erode a protective lining in the colon, which can lead to inflammation and even change the nature of bacteria located there. This has been linked to higher rates of inflammatory bowel disease and obesity.

Preservatives are regulated by the FDA, which has the final say on which additives are approved for consumption. While the FDA regulates the use of preservatives, most additives are never actually tested by the FDA. This is because the FDA uses the GRAS labeling system for many things that are added to food. GRAS, an acronym for the term “Generally Recognized As Safe,” allows producers to add things to food according to established practices, but without requiring pre-approval from the FDA. While this system expedites the rate at which new products can go on the market, there have been several instances where the FDA approved the use of a certain additive, only to repeal it later when they proved to be carcinogenic. Examples of this include Cyclamate, Safrole, Saccharine, and most recently, trans fats.

The video below looks at a variety of food additives and their uses:

The Future of Food

Organic Food, Buying Local, and Farmer’s Markets

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), organic food is “produced without antibiotics, hormones, pesticides, irradiation or bioengineering.” By its very definition then, organic food has the potential to alleviate many of the alleged effects of added ingredients simply because it does not have them. What’s more, becoming certified organic by the USDA is a long, difficult, and expensive process. As a result, the validity of this label also comes with a certain amount of clout. In 2014, the combined sales of organic food in the United States was up 11.3 percent from the previous year to $39.1 billion, approximately five percent of the entire food market.

The rise in organic food sales can, at least in part, be associated with the rise in farmers’ markets. Between 2006 and 2014 the total number in America rose 180 percent to 8,268. Farmers are also turning to selling to local restaurants, distributors and even directly to local schools. Aside from offering food that does not contain any of the additives listed above, doing so has the added impact of reducing fuel costs and pollution.

The Food Industry

Another major change is on the part of the traditional food industry, from grocery stores to restaurants. With organic food emerging as a major trend, supermarkets have been quick to respond. Chains such as Whole Foods have been some of the most successful stores, as their businesses operate on the notion of selling these types of foods.

Fast food, on the other hand, is under a tremendous amount of pressure to use healthier food with fewer additives. The industry has taken some important steps, but based on evaluations like the report mentioned at the beginning of this piece, it has a long way to go. Even before the release of that report, efforts had been underway to rid menus of additives, GMOs, and the equally demonized high-fructose corn syrup. Industry leaders like Panera and Chipotle stopped using these ingredients in their food long before the issue came back up in the news.

Like the use of additives, organic foods also have their own costs and benefits. The first is price–organic food is notoriously more expensive than its non-organic counterparts, as are the prices in restaurants that serve them. Additionally, it is still unclear if they offer any more nutritional value than non-organic foods beyond the absence of additives, hormones, and pesticides. The following video details the pros and cons of organic food:

Conclusion

When people eat food that has antibiotics, hormones, or preservatives, these additives become part of the body and may have adverse effects on their health. We have recently taken important steps to understand what exactly goes into our food and how that affects our health, but there is still a lot that remains unknown. Buying organic food and trying to reduce the use of pesticides and certain additives is an important step to ensure that everything we consume is healthy. But taking these steps to monitor what we eat is only part of the equation; we also need more research to determine exactly how our bodies react to various things that are added to what we eat. While the FDA, USDA, and EPA regulate food production to ensure pesticides, additives, and hormones do not exceed safe levels, these regulations evolve with research. It is up to every individual to make their own informed choice based on their own means. When choosing food people should identify what goes into what they consume and how it is produced. As research progresses, recommendations and regulations can and will continue to change.

Resources

Primary

FDA: Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals

EPA: Pesticide Tolerances

Additional

Frontline: Is Your Meat Safe?

CNN: Report Examines Antibiotics in Meat on Fast Food Menus

Nature: Food Preservatives Linked to Obesity and Gut Disease

Organic Trade Association: U.S. Organic Industry Survey 2015

NPR: Are Farmers’ Market Sales Peaking? That Could be a Good Thing for Farmers

RxList: Antibiotic Resistance

Health: America’s Healthiest Grocery Stores

Entrepreneur: 7 Major Restaurants That are Getting Rid of Artificial Ingredients

National Institute of Health: NIH Human Microbiome Project Defines Normal Bacteria Make-up of the Human Body

Sustainable Tables: Additives

Organic Consumers Association: Beef, Hormones Linked to Premature Onset of Puberty & Breast Cancer

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s in Your Food?: A Look at Regulating the Food Industry appeared first on Law Street.

What’s for dinner tonight? Perhaps steamed corn, infused with some delicious dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Or maybe, if you’re feeling bold, you’ll eat some tofu bites containing glyphosate, which the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified in March as “probably carcinogenic in humans.” Corn, soy, sugar, papayas, milk, zucchini—the list goes on; the number of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, is multiplying. The U.S. House of Representative’s decision on Thursday to pass a law that would block states from mandating GMO labels only contributes to the danger that these GMO or genetically engineered (GE) foods inflict on farmers, on the environment, and on consumers.

So what are GMOs exactly, and why are they causing such a scene on Capitol Hill? Genetically modified organisms are plants or animals that are genetically altered to exhibit traits that are not natural, primarily a resistance to pesticides and herbicides. It may sound brilliant to have developed crops that can withstand the chemicals necessary to cultivate large amounts, but GMOs are often untested, require dangerous chemicals in their farming, and may be a threat to organic foods and to the environment. In the United States, GMO foods require no pre-market testing. Unlike with drug production, where there is mandatory testing on animals, mandatory human clinical trials, mandatory tests of carcinogenicity, fetal impact, neurological impact, and at least some limited allergy testing, none of those steps are required for these crops.

The American Medical Association has stated that mandatory testing should be required before GE foods and ingredients are introduced on the market, but lawmakers continue to ignore medical research centers, farmers, and constituents who oppose or at least want labels on GMOs. Maine, Connecticut, and Vermont have all passed laws mandating the labeling of genetically modified foods for consumers but unfortunately these three states are the exception, not the rule. Last week, a majority of Representatives voted in favor of a law that prevents states from mandating GMO labels, stating that labeling GMO foods is “misleading.” Supporters of the bill said that labeling foods that contain GMOs sends a message to consumers that the products are risky, and that according to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), GMOs are not dangerous. However, that information is based on testing by scientists who are funded and influenced by the companies who own GMOs. Opponents of the bill called banning the labeling of GMOs “an infringement of the public’s right to know what’s in their food.”

Currently, 64 countries worldwide require the labeling of GMOs, including all 28 nations of the European Union, Russia, and China. Our lack of GMO labels is not only causing us to fall behind most other developed countries, but is also failing the satisfy a vast majority of Americans who support GMO labeling. A total of 92 percent of Americans want GMO foods to be labeled and in the past two years, more than 70 labeling bills or ballot initiatives were introduced across 30 states.

In 2012, some of America’s most profitable chemical companies teamed up with large food companies to defeat California’s Proposition 37, an initiative that would have required labeling of genetically engineered foods. Monsanto, PepsiCo, CocaCola, Nestle, and several other companies spent over 45 million dollars to block the legislation. Why? Because keeping consumers in the dark about the dangers of GMOs can be profitable, and requiring labels would allow consumers to question what they’re consuming before they buy. The companies that own GMO seeds, which are patented, sell their seeds to farmers who then buy herbicides from the same companies who also own the chemicals. This brilliant business model is racking up millions for these corporations, but is causing people to consume more and more dangerous herbicides.

Another concerning symptom is that weeds are becoming resistant to the hazardous chemicals. Genetically engineered crops are designed to survive weed killers. Corporations like Monsanto that create these herbicides and pesticides claim that herbicide use has decreased since the introduction of GE crops; however, before GE crops were cultivated, weeds resistant to Roundup did not exist. There are now 14 known species of Roundup-resistant weeds in the U.S. alone, known as “super weeds.” Super weeds have been reported on half of all U.S. farms and cost farmers millions of dollars a year to control. With more weeds becoming resistant to Roundup, farmers now have to spray larger quantities of even more toxic herbicides on their crops to kill weeds, like 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-d), a component of the poisonous Agent Orange used during the Vietnam War. GMOs intensify the problem of herbicide use and create more super weeds that are immune to harsh chemicals, disrupt the environment, and contaminate water systems.

In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. The panel pointed to chemicals, primarily herbicides in our air, water, soil, and food as the primary cause of this increased cancer rate. Later that same summer, the journal Pediatrics reported in a peer-reviewed study that there is a direct correlation between pesticide exposure and increased ADHD diagnoses. In 2011 a study revealed that the insecticide in GMO corn was detected in the umbilical cord blood of pregnant women. With 90 percent of soy and 85 percent of corn now genetically engineered, and super weeds on the rise leading to harsher chemicals being used on our food, GMO consumers are being exposed to more and more dangerous chemicals. And without GMO labels, shoppers have no idea if the foods they are eating are a part of that group.

Congress’s decision last week to block any mandatory labeling of foods made with genetically engineered crops proves that corporate influence in Washington is taking away our right to choose what we consume. Genetically modified foods can and should be labeled, and Congress has an obligation to listen to the 92 percent of Americans who support the right to know what they are consuming via GMO labels. The FDA’s Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act states that the consumer has a right to know when something is added to food that changes it in ways a consumer would likely not recognize, and that indicates labeling should be required. Just like juice from concentrate, wild versus farmed, country of origin, and many other mandatory labels we see on our foods, GMOs should also be visible, since the chemicals that come with them are not. We have a right to know and a right to choose. It’s time to question whether the FDA and Congress are here to protect us, the people, or to protect a handful of chemical companies that want to keep us in the dark.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post GMO Labeling: The American People Have A Right To Know appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed lately that the prices at your local grocery store have been going up, and we tend to chalk it up to many things: rising gas prices, season, time of the month, or even the moon. Many of us will even pay more to shop in certain stores. When you think of grocery stores that cost a little for the ambience, you might think of Whole Foods. Just last week, the upscale grocery chain hit a rough patch when it was discovered that it has been overcharging its customers by a lot–and it has created problems for the grocery giant.

The Problem With Whole Foods

New York City’s Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) is investigating the grocery chain for “systemic overcharging for pre-packaged foods” that affected several branches of the store. It was something that they had been monitoring for a long time, and had even warned the stores about; however, they found on multiple trips that there were many problems and incorrect markings.

Some of these problems were outlined in the DCA’s report, including packages that were labeled with heavier weights than they actually were:

• Vegetable platters that were priced at about $20 a package. The packages were all different sizes, averaging about $2.50 over. One package in particular was overpriced by a whopping $6.15.
• Chicken tenders, a staple in many households, were priced at about $9.99 per pound, but were marked up by an average of $4.13.
• Berries, currently in season, were priced at $8.58 a package, but customers were overcharged by $1.15.

These charges were widespread, and though they may only look like a few dollars, they likely added up quickly over time. The DCA concluded that “New York City stores routinely overstated the weights of its pre-packaged products — including meats, dairy and baked goods — resulting in customers being overcharged.”

However, Whole Foods spokesman Michael Sinatra says that the DCA hasn’t actually confronted the store:

Despite our requests to the DCA, they have not provided evidence to back up their demands nor have they requested any additional information from us, but instead have taken this to the media to coerce us.

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Just last year, Whole Foods had to pay an $800,000 fine in California for overcharging customers. So what can we do about this problem?

Rising Prices

The prices of different foods aren’t set by the government, like many think, but instead are a result of supply and demand. While the U.S. government does track prices, they are instead set by the wholesalers and growers of food.

One of the biggest causes of rising grocery costs is the prevalence of drought throughout the United States, especially in California. Drought affects everything from the crops that need water to survive to the cows that eat the grass. However, what the government can do is make sure that grocery stores are truthful when it comes to what they charge–and they can penalize those who don’t fall in line. In fact, that is exactly what they did to Whole Foods, which was fined “$950 for the first violation and up to $1,700 for a subsequent violation. The potential number of violations that Whole Foods faces for all pre-packaged goods in the NYC stores is in the thousands.”

Other Issues

Think the problem of overcharging is limited to just Whole Foods? There are a litany of other offenses that grocery stores have committed. In 2012, the Los Angeles Superior Court handed out a settlement of $1.1 million from Ralphs Grocery Co. because it overcharged its customers at the deli stand.

Some states, like North Carolina, allow for a small over- or under- charge on deli or weighted items. North Carolina allows a 5 percent discrepancy, but that hasn’t stopped the problem of overcharging. In fact, since November 2014, nine stores were fined by the state, including Dollar General, CVS, Target, and Walgreens, according to the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.

What Can You Do?

Apart from reporting any discrepancies that you think you see to the management of your local grocer, what are some of the things that you can do to keep yourself from being taken advantage of?

There are multiple things you can do to check whether or not you are being charged too much at the grocery store. The New York Department of Consumer Affairs suggests checking your receipt for what can and cannot be taxed. They even offer a quick link to a hot list of items that can be taxed.

The Today Show, which did a whole segment on the charges, suggests that you should actually weigh items yourself just to make sure. Most grocery stores will have electronic scales that are fairly easy to work and will help you out. They also suggest that you should make sure you are paying for the things you actually get, and not things like ice on frozen fish or packaging.

Another suggestion is that instead of focusing on getting your money ready or looking at the candy bar display, you should watch as the cashier rings up your food items. You will catch many mistakes that way, and often they will be corrected without a fight.

Conclusion

At the end of the day, grocery stores are in the same market that everyone else is in: they want to make money. While there are governmental teams out there that can help with these problems, it is largely up to consumers to make sure that everything’s kosher.

When you are at the grocery store, try to be present and pay attention to the things you are purchasing. Understand that sometimes prices will rise and fall, but they should always be around the same price. Don’t be afraid to ask workers if something seems off, as you might just save yourself a few bucks and the company thousands in fines.

Resources

CNN: Whole Foods Accused of Massive Overcharging

New York City Consumer Affairs: Department of Consumer Affairs Investigation Uncovers Systemic Overcharging for Pre-packaged Foods at City’s Whole Foods

Salon: Whole Foods is Ripping You Off (And it Has Been For Years)

Amarillo Globe-News: Several Factors Determine Food Prices at Grocery Stores

Class Action: Court Hands Victory to Workers in Wage and Hour Lawsuit

Fox News: New York City Says Whole Foods is Overcharging Customers

Journal Sentinel: State Fines Four Stores For Overcharging Customers

NY Eatery: City Sting Reveals Whole Foods Has Been Overcharging New Yorkers Since 2010

,Today Show: Not Just Whole Foods: Beware Supermarket Overcharges

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Grocery Bill Breaking the Bank? It’s Not Just Whole Foods appeared first on Law Street.

Sometimes, you read about some event and you think, “What?! No way! That’s such a freak occurrence, it could only happen once!” You think this, and then you see Facebook’s related stories and realize that not only did said thing happen once, it happened several times. And then, if you are me, you write about it. That leads us to this week’s topic …

I like to eat as much as the next guy (well, maybe not as much as the next guy if the next guy is any one of the people I’m about to talk about) and when I am really hungry, I get grumpy. I might pout and be snappish and generally act like a five year old, but that is the extent of my ire. I would never attack anyone over food; however, as my Facebook-related stories has pointed out to me, this is a much more common thing than one might think. So here are seven (yes, I have found seven, and I am sure I did not find them all) food fights that you need to know about.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Don’t Mess With Her Pork Chops

A mom in Ohio was arrested earlier this year when she threw knives at her 15-year-old son, hitting his thumb with one badly enough that he had to be taken to the hospital for stiches. What did he do that caused her to get so mad that she threw multiple knives at his head? According to her, he pushed her–which even she admitted did not justify the act. However, if you ask him, he claims there was even a stranger, less justifiable reason: they had an argument about pork chops. Specifically, he had eaten the leftover pork chops and when his hungry mom asked about them, he lied. I guess the lesson here is this: never lie to this woman about eating her food–and also, maybe just don’t eat her food at all.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Fried Chicken Mayhem

Let me start out this one by saying that there is never a good reason to beat up your wife (or girlfriend or husband or boyfriend or pretty much anybody with few exceptions); however, the following has to be one of the worst reasons I have ever heard. A man in Florida was recently arrested for beating up and choking his wife who escaped and called 911. While there were a couple of reasons for his alleged attack, the one that stands out is the fried chicken. The couple got into an argument when the husband accused the wife of not having enough fried chicken leftovers. What exactly do you think is the appropriate amount of fried chicken leftovers one should have?

Beer, Please!

This one is the most bizarre by far: a woman in South Carolina stabbed her common-law husband when he came home on Christmas Eve without beer. Okay. So far this one does not seem any more bizarre than the others. But that’s only because I have not yet told you what she used in the alleged stabbing: a ceramic squirrel. This woman, who does not like to spend Christmas sober, took a ceramic squirrel, hit her husband in the head with it, and then stabbed him in the shoulder and chest. The man had not bought the beer because the store was closed. Maybe this would have been the only good reason to rob a store: to avoid domestic violence by squirrel.

O.J. Syndrome

I feel like all I really need to give you here is the headline about this Louisiana man: Dad Shoots Son in Butt During Fight Over Orange Juice. I mean, wow! (Oh yeah, one last thing I want to add: the 18-year-old son did not appear to have life-threatening injuries, which makes it okay, in my opinion, to laugh at such a weird tale.)

Fiery Italian

I had a horrible roommate in college–well, one of them was horrible, not all of them–and so I know the absolute rage that a bad roommate can cause in a person. That being said, I never once set my horrible roommate on fire. A woman in Florida cannot say the same. And this woman is 33, so we cannot even add on a, ‘stupid immature college kid’ to this horrible story. When this woman found out that her roommate had thrown out her leftover meal of spaghetti and meatballs, which she was saving for later, she doused her roommate in nail polish remover, and then set him on fire.

Sassy Salsa

Courtesy of Giphy.

So here is another stabbing story: a woman in Ohio (Ohio and Florida just keep popping up as places you never want to live if you like to eat) was arrested for stabbing her boyfriend, allegedly over the fact that he ate all of her salsa. For this heinous crime, the woman stabbed him repeatedly with a pen. His injuries were not life-threatening. I hope that salsa was really, really good.

I Want Bacon, I’m Not Faking

This is the story that you are most likely to have already heard about. A woman in Michigan was arrested and convicted of shooting at a McDonald’s that twice forgot to put bacon on her bacon cheeseburger. Apparently the bacon is the most important part of a bacon cheeseburger. The woman was charged with shooting at an occupied building (she shot at the Micky-D’s, not at a person in the restaurant) and carrying a concealed weapon.

So there you have it. Seven good reasons why you should not mess with anybody’s food!

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top Food Fights Ending in Arrest…Seriously, Food Fight Arrests appeared first on Law Street.

Rising populations and increasingly heavy use of technology is causing a global food crisis. But starvation isn’t the issue at hand; it is waste. The amount of food that is wasted worldwide costs a huge amount of money, fills landfills, and emits methane gas. The process of producing and delivering food in the first place induces environmental damage and displaces people and animals. This complex and interconnected system requires attention on multiple levels if we intend to avert a slew of catastrophes.

Similar to the problems with water, the primary problem with managing and consuming food is not scarcity but distribution imbalances. People starve in many places around the world, while others gorge themselves on conspicuously lavish meals that they do not intend to finish. In fact, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimated that the food discarded by retailers and consumers in the most developed counties would be more than enough to feed all of the world’s 870 million hungry people. Some suggest that the economic ramifications of wasted food reach into the hundreds of billions of dollars. An additional scientific conclusion includes the fact that the amount of methane gas emitted by decomposing food in landfills is only surpassed by national emissions of the United States and China.

Courtesy of Bill McChesney via Flickr.

Considering these ominous statistics, some say a solution is to refrain from eating meat. The meat industry requires large swaths of land to raise animals, huge amounts of food to feed to them, and enormous quantities of water to grow those crops in the first place. This resource and energy intensive process thus draws in many sectors in order to be possible. While this decision may help reduce demand for such environmentally threatening foods, there are many other products that we eat whose production is costly. For example, one of the most common ingredients in many foods, especially packaged and frozen ones, is palm oil. The price for the acquisition of the substance includes heavy deforestation in Indonesia and Malaysia, which displaces indigenous people, releases stored carbon into the atmosphere, and threatens already critically endangered animals such as Sumatran rhinos and orangutans, Asian elephants, and leopards.

Courtesy of David Ellis via Flickr.

The overall production and distribution processes of the industry is one of the primary concerns at play. Thanks in part to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, one of the sparks of the environmental movement in the 60s, we are quite familiar with all the problems associated with spraying chemicals, pesticides, and DDT. It has already been established that pesticides and deforestation are endangering butterflies; however, they are still widely used in the agricultural sector. A relatively recent possible solution involved genetically modified crop seeds, which provide the subsequent plants with an incorporated pesticide that attacks the nervous system of pests such as root worms and flea beetles. It is becoming evident that these plants are dangerous to other types of insects as well, particularly bees. This could be catastrophic. All mosquitoes do is spread diseases; the world could do quite well without them. Bees are another story. They are pollinating insects; they provide a crucial component to their ecosystems, allowing plants to reproduce, flourish, and anchor the food chains built above them. Furthermore, even farmers often rely on bees to help pollinate their own crops.

Courtesy of Brian via Flickr.

In addition to addressing these large-scale global patterns of production, there are many things that vendors and consumers can do to alleviate the situation, particularly with regard to food waste. Composting is becoming more and more common, which helps insofar as reducing the amount of food thrown away; rather it puts it to productive purposes in fertilizing soil in which new plants can be grown. As this occurs on a local level, it also reduces pollution that results from transportation challenges. In an effort to reduce waste, KFC restaurants in Britain will begin making their coffee cups out of an edible sugar paper and white chocolate. While this reduction in waste is not specifically with regard to food, it is a nice idea and a good starting point.

Ultimately neither of these things will resolve the wide ranging set of challenges we face with regard to the food sector. Yet they help us think about our consumption habits and the environment around us. The decisions we make as consumers are vital to addressing wasted food. Our habits, lifestyles, values, and expectations play a substantial role in the patterns of the industry. Therefore we have plenty of opportunities to act productively and affect change. The first step? Don’t bite off more than you can chew.

For more information on how you can make meaningful changes in your own life, here are some helpful tools:

• The Waste Free Kitchen Handbook, written by a project scientist at the Natural Resource Defense Council and coming out in May 2015.
• End Food Waste: Website with relevant information and activist campaigns.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Challenges of Food Production and Consumption appeared first on Law Street.

People starving or going hungry seems like something out of the past in the United States. After all, aren’t we always telling ourselves how we are the wealthiest and greatest nation on the planet? Although those are certainly debatable points, we are definitely one of the fattest at least, right? Well while the United States is home to immense wealth, happiness, and large waist lines, hunger is still a very real problem here. In fact, one in six people in this country faces hunger every day. That number increases to one in five for children, one in three if the child is black or Latino. The point is that even in the United States, the lone remaining superpower, hunger is still a major issue. Furthermore, if it is a problem here then it is likely a problem everywhere. The question then, is how to solve the crisis? How do we make it, to quote Gone From the Wind, so that, we “never go hungry again?”

Why is there a food shortage?

Production

In looking for the culprit for hunger, naturally it seems wise to look for the root of the problem. However, while it may seem like a no-brainer that hunger is caused by a shortage of food or lack of production, this is actually false. In fact today we already produce enough food to feed everyone on the planet and the amount of food being produced each year actually outpaces population growth as well. Although it is as of yet unclear whether production can keep up with growth indefinitely, right now the amount of food is not the major issue concerning hunger. If the amount of food isn’t the issue, then what is it?

Cost

The answer to that question is several-fold. First as always, cost plays a major role. After all nothing in life is free, especially not lunch. Truthfully though it is not so much a matter of cost as it is a matter of poverty. In fact when it comes to hunger, poverty is inextricably intertwined. Poverty is akin to a disease that weakens the immune system and cost is what is then allowed to spread. While there is clearly enough food to feed the world’s population, it is not equally and appropriately distributed because many groups throughout the world simply cannot afford it.

Along this same vein is the cost of production. While this is certainly less of a problem in the United States with its advanced transportation structure the simple act of harvesting food and transporting it to a market for sale can price out needy people in other regions of the globe.

As a result this can lead to hunger. It can also cause malnutrition, as those unable to afford healthy–or any–food turn to cheaper and less nutritious substitutes. This can further serve as a catch 22 of sorts, as the inferior food makes a person weaker and less healthy and thus less able to find an occupation that could provide nutritious food that would then lead to better health.

Waste

Another major problem is the amount of food wasted. According to the World Food Program, every year one-third of the food that is produced is never consumed and is instead wasted. In addition along with the wasted food are all the wasted resources such as fertilizers and water that go into food production. Thus while enough food is produced to feed seven billion people, it is unlikely there is enough to feed those same seven billion and throw away another third.  The video below provides a more detailed breakdown on yearly waste.

Regional Instability

While waste may be a less apparent reason for hunger, perhaps the most obvious is conflict. Indeed in areas of prolonged and expansive war, hunger is a very serious problem. Not only does the physical destruction from battle destroy valuable farmland, the conflict also forces people off their lands and often into other areas that are already struggling to feed their own people. A real-time example of this is what is currently going on in Syria. With refugees trying to flee the conflict, the means to adequately feed the ever-growing displaced population are fewer and fewer to come by.

Climate Change

Along with cost, waste, and conflict is another growing concern related to hunger–the impact of climate change. According to Worldwatch Institute, climate change could affect many of the agricultural areas that can least afford it such as South and Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle East. While it may improve the conditions for other needy areas such as East Asia and Latin America, this still greatly increases the chances of malnutrition for the world’s poor. Furthermore it also puts the question of adequate production further into doubt. According to the study, by 2050 there will actually be less food being produced than in 2000. This is especially concerning in that the population by 2050 is expected to grow from approximately seven billion today to nine billion then.  The video below details the dangers of climate change on food production.

Ways to Fix the Problem

Although hunger is an age-old problem and new challenges are rising that exacerbate it, there is still room for hope. That hope comes in the forms of a number of programs aimed at addressing the root causes of hunger and its resulting side effects.

At the grassroots level are programs such as the one initiated by the organization Stop Hunger Now. The approach of this organization is two-fold: first is the actual feeding of hungry children around the world via healthy food packets that are high in nutrition and can improve development, and second are programs aimed at combating poverty, one of the major causes of hunger globally. This includes teaching skills to break the cycle of poverty and educating people on better health practices, which reduces the risk of malnutrition.

Along with private programs are government efforts. In the immediate are programs that address hunger directly, such as those that assist in buying food like SNAP, also commonly known as food stamps. In 2013, one in five households was on food stamps–an all-time high. To help feed all these people the government spent approximately $80 billion in 2013.

There are also government efforts on the global scale as well. One such program conducted by the United States is known as Feed the Future. How this program works is first the federal government selects a number of countries. The next step is the planning phase where the government then tailors programs for each country. Once the planning step is completed, a large investment is made aimed at empowering women, growing high-yield and diverse crops, creating an adequate infrastructure for moving the product once is has grown, and above all else providing an occupation that can help lift people out of poverty.  The video below explains the Feed the Future program in greater detail.

These programs and countless other similar programs are providing a means both to fight hunger at the present and the overall issues underlying it specifically poverty.

Conclusion

In 2000 the United Nations released a set of eight goals it wished to achieve by 2015 known as the Millennial Goals. Number one on the list, eradicate extreme poverty and hunger. This goal was very ambitious, even bordering on unrealistic. Thus by next year hunger and extreme poverty are not likely to be completely done away with.

Nonetheless, the rates of both are greatly reduced. Extreme poverty for example has been cut in half, which as has been alluded to, is essential to ending hunger. Reducing hunger directly has also met with great success, in 2012 and 2013 for instance, 173 million fewer people faced continuous hunger compared with 1990 to 1992. The number of children whose growth has been stunted by poor nutrition has also decreased markedly as well from 40 percent to 25 percent today.

Indeed significant gains have been made in the fight against hunger. While there is still no panacea to end it, all these steps and programs have made more than a dent. Continued efforts to address the main causes will only go further in reducing it; however, to ever completely eradicate it, seismic shifts need to be made in ending problems like inequality, war, and waste. Hunger therefore is not likely to ever be eradicated overnight, instead it will take a continued effort, one hungry mouth at a time.

Resources

Primary 

World Food Program: What Causes Hunger?

United Nations Development Program: Millennial Development Goals

Additional

Do Something: 11 Facts About Hunger in the United States

Freedom from Hunger: World Hunger Facts

Worldwatch Institute: Climate Change Will Worsen Hunger 

Guardian: World Food Day: 10 Myths About Hunger

CBS News; War and Hunger

Stop Hunger Now: Mission and History

CNS News: Record 20% of Households on Food Stamps in 2013

Feed the Future: Approach

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hunger: An Intractable Problem With a Myriad of Causes appeared first on Law Street.

Our adventures in genetics began with a monk named Gregor Mendel.  Mendel systematically bred pea plants to demonstrate the concepts behind genetic transmission before “gene” was even a word. He brandished a paint brush to cross breed plants that exhibited inheritance of exciting traits like wrinkly peas and inflated pods. Mendel was confined to pea plants in his search for potential traits. Today, we aren’t bound to the same species in our search for traits. We can bend the rules of nature as we know them using recombinant DNA technology. Welcome to the world of genetically modified organisms.

OMG…what are GMOs, anyway?

GMO is more than just a backwards OMG. GMO stands for genetically modified organism. Other terms used to describe them include bioengineered, transgenic, genetically engineered (GE), or just genetically modified (GM). All of these terms describe an organism created through genetic engineering. Genetic engineering allows us to transfer genes that yield desirable traits from one organism to another. Technology has granted us power to cross species barriers, so unlike Mendel, we don’t have to choose traits from just one species.

How are traits transferred?

Genetic engineering uses recombinant DNA technology to splice a piece of DNA from one species and insert it into the DNA of another species. Scientists identify the piece of DNA responsible for the desired trait, clone it, modify it to make it more compatible with the destination organism, and then insert it into the new organism. The modification occurs on a cellular level and the borrowed gene transforms to fit the destination organism’s DNA. Other methods involve repressing a gene that causes a certain characteristic, like they did to make a tomato that ripened after harvesting.

The Great Health Debate

Genetic engineering enables us to create crops with ideal characteristics, taking yields far beyond the possibilities of even the most resourceful farmers. Everyone must be thrilled! Not so much. In fact, many people are concerned about what GMOs might be doing to our health. Even with hazy understanding of GMOs, worries run rampant.

Leave it to Jimmy Kimmel to delve deep into society’s perceptions of hot-button issues.

What’s behind all of these worries?

No studies have proven that GMOs pose a significant health threat. There were some false alarms, but the studies were flagged for faulty mechanisms. In the absence of clear-cut science, why are people still worried about GMOs and their health?

Most people fear that a reason to be concerned just hasn’t been found yet, not that it doesn’t exist. Common misgivings are that gene transfer might also transfer antibiotic resistance and allergens, and that GMOs might not be as nutritious as their natural counterparts. While many of these apprehensions remain unsubstantiated, they’re still putting GMOs under scrutiny.

Are we right to worry about GMOs and our health? It turns out we may not know enough. Experts agree that the completed studies fall short in meriting total confidence. GMO testing has no minimal length requirement, even for crops cultivated on a large scale. Many point to a need for more long-term, quality, and transparent studies done on possible health effects of GMOs.

This article from University of California San Francisco quotes Patrice Sutton, a public health expert, to summarize concerns regarding GMOs and public health:

“Many people could rightly look at the existing science and see that it’s extremely weak,” Sutton said. “However, weak science does not prove safety; it just demonstrates that the public health impacts of GMOs are uncertain. It’s an overall public health principle that in the face of scientific uncertainty to expose everybody to something is a legitimate concern that should give us pause.”

Some contend that labeling food containing GMOs could fill in information gaps. After all, 97 percent of edible GMOs are cultivated in the United States and South America where no labeling requirement exists. Without labeling, long term studies and traceability are impossible. Which leads to our next point…

Should we label GMOs?

The FDA says “no” and hasn’t changed its mind since 1992. It adheres to substantial equivalence, the concept that a GMO doesn’t merit concern if it’s substantially equivalent to an existing food. This view was challenged in the court case, Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala. The court sided with the FDA, deferring to  its technological expertise in this complicated matter.

These decisions did little to quell budding concerns from the public. Today, 93 percent of Americans desire GMO labels on food, according to an ABC News poll.

The “Yes” People

The “yes” people rally behind the “right to know” battlecry, using it as the basis for GMO labeling initiatives. They believe consumers have a right to know what their products contain and make informed decisions for themselves.

At present, GMO ingredients in food are credence qualities — those that a consumer cannot evaluate let alone leverage in their purchase decisions. Labeling proponents say consumers can’t make informed decisions at the point of purchase without labels.

Doctors have also chimed in on the “right to know,” asserting that GMO labeling could affect how they study and treat their patients. It could be challenging to detect potential health impacts, including food allergies, if consumers don’t know what they’re eating.

Of course the worries mentioned above — allergies, antibiotic resistance, and nutrition — also factor into the “yes” arguments. Without labeling, it will be taxing to discern if these worries ever manifest as realistic concerns.

The “No” People

The “no” people suppose that a consumer’s “right to know” could lead to a consumer’s “right to be confused.” They think labels might give people a false reason to worry since no evidence suggests GMOs are harmful to health. A label doesn’t guarantee an informed consumer, especially when people are already confused. Furthermore, some argue that a GMO label only treats a symptom of consumers’ grander problem with industrial farming techniques.

And there’s more where that came from. The “no” people have a whole laundry list of concerns surrounding GMO labeling. Here’s a preview:

• A GMO label may inspire worry, leading to decreased demand and therefore production. Poor market acceptance could prematurely cripple a promising technology.
• A GMO labeling requirement could cause costs to skyrocket — some estimate by 10 percent of an annual grocery bill.
• A GMO label isn’t necessary. Concerned consumers can just buy certified organic foods that prohibit the use of GMOs.
• The food system infrastructure in the United States would need to be overhauled if a GMO label is required. Producers would need to implement extensive tracking and reporting systems to accommodate the new requirement, possibly with unforeseen costs and consequences.

So that covers “yes” and “no,” but the question of GMO labeling is far too complex for  monosyllabic responses. The decision packs a load of potential economic, legal, and societal implications.

From lawyers to farmers, this NPR spot explores why voters in Colorado and Oregon are answering “yes” or “no” to the deceptively simple question of GMO labeling that they’re facing on upcoming ballots:

There you have the gist of both sides. Now, what decisions have actually been made concerning GMO labeling?

Decisions…decisions…

States are buzzing with proposals to require GMO labeling. The Center for Food Safety keeps track of the status of proposed bills on this page if you’re curious. So far, GMO labeling bills have been rejected in California and Washington. Connecticut and Maine have passed laws, but they lack potency until neighboring states also pass labeling laws. Vermont stands alone as the only state to pass a GMO labeling law, no neighbors required. The labels will start popping up in 2016. Or maybe not. Food manufacturing heavyweights have filed a lawsuit against Vermont’s GMO labeling law. The groups purport that Vermont exceeded its constitutional authority by forcing costs and undermining the authority of federal agencies like the FDA. The results of the lawsuit will determine the temperature of GMO labeling measures in other states. Oregon is up to bat next as it makes a statewide ballot decision about GMO labeling on November 4, 2014.

Umm…what about the rest of the United States?

If you’re thinking state-by-state labeling laws could get complicated, you’re not alone. Two bills from the 113th Congress address GMO labeling on a nationwide scale. They’re on opposite ends of the spectrum:

1. The Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act was introduced by Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in April 2014. The bill would require producers to notify the Secretary of Health and Human Services of the use of a bioengineered organism intended for consumption. It would then be up to the Secretary to determine if a label should be required based on whether or not there is a material difference between the bioengineered product and the traditional food. The bill would nullify any previous state laws passed requiring mandatory labeling. Some critics have called the bill the DARK or Deny Americans the Right to Know  act because many GMOs would likely escape labeling.
2. Conversely the Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Representative Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) would require any food with one or more genetically modified ingredients to be labeled as such or be deemed misbranded.

Some companies have decided to take GMO matters into their own hands. After all, the customer is always right!

GMO Labeling Trailblazers

Private companies don’t have to wait for a state or federal government to make company-wide GMO decisions. According to the NPD Group, 11 percent of primary shoppers would pay more for non-GMO products. Some companies commit to serving this hyper-concerned segment.

• General Mills announced its original Cheerios are GMO free.
• Whole Foods plans to move to full GMO transparency by 2018.
• Ben and Jerry’s fully supports mandatory GMO labeling and wants to remove GMOs from its products. The company believes happy ingredients = happy ice cream.

Will labels determine the fate of GMO ingredients?

Consumer concerns will remain regardless of decisions on GMO labeling. With most American consumers saying they deserve the right to know, the search for information will continue whether it’s slapped on the front of a package or not.

But GMO labeling decisions and subsequent market reactions could determine if GMO technology skyrockets or stalls.

Conclusion

What will GMOs mean to future generations? A Pandora’s Box of unnatural selection? A budding innovation that ends world hunger? Right now, we really don’t know. In this circumstance, not knowing simply means we have many more exciting things to learn in the years to come.

Resources

Choices: Genetically Modified Organisms: Why All the Controversy?

UC San Francisco: Genetically Modified Food Labeling Through the Lens of Public Health

National Geographic: The GMO Labeling Battle is Heating Up–Here’s Why

International Journal of Biological Sciences: Debate on GMOs Health Risks After Statistical Findings in Regulatory Tests

WebTV: Food Fight: The Debate Over GMOs in Colorado

Slate: The Price of Your Right to Know

World Health Organization: Frequently Asked Questions on Genetically Modified Foods

Denver Post: GMO Labeling Measure in Colorado Triggers Heated Debate

NPR: Voters Will Get Their Say On GMO Labeling In Colorado And Oregon

AgBioForum: Labeling Policy For GMOs: To Each His Own?

Colorado State University: Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

Center for Food Safety: Ben & Jerry’s, GE-Labeling Advocates Protest Anti-GE Labeling Bill

Politico: GMO Labeling Bill Would Trump States

Politico: Food Industry to Fire Preemptive GMO Strike

Los Angeles Times: General Mills Drops GMOs from Cheerios

Institute of Food Technologists: Most Consumers Won’t Pay More For Non-GMO Food

National Academies Press: Genetically Modified Organisms: An Ancient Practice on the Cusp

Science Meets Food: What You Need to Know About GMOs, GM Crops, and the Techniques of Modern Biotechnology

Ashley Bell

Ashley Bell communicates about health and wellness every day as a non-profit Program Manager. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Business and Economics from the College of William and Mary, and loves to investigate what changes in healthy policy and research might mean for the future. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yes or No? GMO Labeling Is Not That Simple appeared first on Law Street.