In modern culture, the term “GMO” has reached almost a trendy status both among health-conscious circles and the general public alike. As health and fitness have become more mainstream, people are beginning to take more of an aggressive approach to their health and pay more attention into what they put into their body. Coinciding with this, there has been a recent influx in the number of grassroots movements (i.e. Non-GMO Project, Buy Local) and social media advocacy campaigns to fight GMO in our food supply, which has contributed to an increased awareness. In fact, according to a report from the Natural Marketing Institute (2014), consumer awareness of the term “genetically modified organisms” has increased from 42% in 2012 to 54% in 2013, while awareness of the term “genetically modified food” increased from 61% in 2012 to 69% in 2013. Consequently, in response to this wave of awareness, we are seeing an increase in the number of GMO-free and non-GMO products being introduced in the marketplace. According to the same NMI (2014) report, the number of new GMO-free products in the market grew 145%, from 551 in 2012 to 1350 in 2013. However, while awareness continues to grow, the percentage of GMO strains in our food supply continues to go unchecked. Indeed, while we continue to see an increase in the amount of activism and advocacy against genetically-engineered foods, the federal government has largely given GMO food companies a pass in terms of regulation. As it stands today, there is no federal requirement for labeling food that contains GM ingredients. But is it all bad? As consumers, we tend to view this “GMO trend” almost unanimously in a bad light. Along with the strong undercurrent of the unknown when it comes to the scope of GMO’s, the overall lack of studies regarding long-term health effects has inspired fear in all of us. In an attempt to quell some of the uncertainty and ambiguity, I scanned numerous scholarly journals and research databases to produce a review of existing GMO literature in hopes of gleaning insights. Here is what I found… What are GMOs? According to the World Health Organization (2014), genetically modified organisms (or GMOs) are defined as, “organisms (i.e. plants, animals or microorganisms) in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally by mating and/or natural recombination.” The technology, which is also referred to as “gene technology,” “modern biotechnology,” and “genetic engineering” among others, allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, and also between nonrelated species (WHO, 2014).The use of this technology allows farmers to enhance desired traits in their crops, such as improved nutritional content and an increased resistance to herbicides. In the past, this enhancement has traditionally been undertaken through breeding; however, while conventional plant breeding methods are very time consuming and are often not very accurate, genetic engineering can create plants with the exact desired trait very rapidly and with great accuracy (Whitman, 2000). A Brief History While discourse pertaining to GMOs has become commonplace in our contemporary lexicon, it can be easy to forget that as a technology, it is relatively new. While the genetic manipulation of foods can be traced back thousands of years, the modern phenomenon of GMOs and transgenic plants stems back only about 40 years to the very beginnings of recombinant (man-made) DNA research (rDNA), where it was discovered in 1973 by Dr. Herbert Boyer at Stanford University; although momentum really began in the 1980s, when scientists discovered that DNA could be transferred from one organism to another. In 1982, the FDA approved the first GMO, an artificial form of insulin called Humulin, made from gene-splicing techniques. The following year in 1983, scientists created the first transgenic plant, a tobacco plant that was resistant to antibiotics. The following decade in 1994 marked the first GMO product to hit grocery store shelves: the Flavr Savr, a GMO tomato that possessed a longer shelf life than conventional tomatoes (Bruening & Lyons, 2000). The following year in 1995, biotech company Monsanto introduced herbicide-resistant crop seeds known as “Roundup Ready.” Fast-forward only 4 years to 1999, and over 100 million acres worldwide are planted with genetically engineered seeds (Woosley, 2013). In 2003, GMO-resistant insects began to appear, when a moth is found eating GMO cotton crops in the southern US, forcing farmers to double up on their amount of pesticide use (Storer et al., 2003). And 3 years ago in 2011, doctors discover bt toxins (a naturally occurring bacterium that produces crystal proteins that are lethal to insect larvae) in the blood of pregnant women, showing evidence that the toxin can be passed to human fetuses (Aris & LeBlanc, 2011). Why are GMOs being used? As it stands today, the utilization of biotechnology in agriculture remains a highly polarizing and divisive issue among the general public. While we tend to only hear about the negative aspects, there are a number of supporters who propagate the potential benefits, and there is a good amount of scholarship on this topic alone. In addressing the purported benefits, scholars such as Bakshi (2003) argue that biotechnology is crucial “to resolving the problems of food availability, poverty reduction, malnutrition and environmental conservation in the developing world, as it does not benefit just the farmers who grow crops, but also the consumers who eat genetically modified food” (p. 211). Young (1999) notes similarly that foods produced through the use of biotechnology are more nutritious, stable in storage, and promote better health in humans in both industrialized and developing nations. Along these lines, Nap et al. (2003) found that genetically modified crops have the fastest adoption rate of any new technology in global agriculture simply because farmers benefit directly from higher yields and lowered production costs. For the consumer, arguably the greatest benefit of GMO crop production is its potential to contribute to a more adequate and better quality food supply. By genetically engineering food to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies can be mitigated, in turn helping to reduce health disparities. For example, in many third world countries, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a major problem. In fact, every year approximately 350,000 people go blind due to lack of food (Nash, 2000). To help combat this, Beyer et al (2002) were able to create a strain of “golden” rice which contained large amounts of beta-carotene (vitamin A), and through the use of non-profits and charity organizations were able to offer the modified rice to any developing country that requested it. Pro- GMO advocates argue that a similar paradigm on a larger scale could benefit millions of others in terms of solving the issue of food insecurity and malnutrition. Other proponents of biotechnology in agriculture point to its ability to accelerate the efficiency and extent of crop improvement by the transfer of genes giving resistance to pests, diseases, herbicides and environmental stress (Nap et al, 2003). Historically, agriculture has suffered from disease and pest infestation since its inception, causing large losses in food production. As Whitman (2000) notes, these losses can be staggering, resulting in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation in developing countries. And while the majority of consumers are against the spraying of pesticides because of their inherent health risks and run-off potential, by engineering transgenic, pest-protected crops, farmers can eliminate the use of chemical pesticides, and in turn, reduce overhead costs. In addition to creating herb/pesticide resistant crops, the use of genetic engineering can also aid in allowing crops to withstand environmental factors, such as drought and poor soil conditions (Bakshi, 2003). As our population continues to rise and more and more farming land is becoming occupied, farmers are being forced to grow crops in areas previously deemed unsuitable for agriculture. However, by being able to alter the genetic makeup of plants to withstand long periods of drought, extreme climate change and/ or high salinity content in the soil, farmers are now able to grow crops virtually everywhere. What are some of the risks? Despite the numerous potential benefits to be had from genetically modified crops into the food supply, there are a number of concerns about potential risks associated with this new agricultural technology, specifically in terms of environmental and food safety. These concerns have become so great that some experts question whether or not the movement can remain sustainable at this level. Among these concerns, arguably the biggest one stems from the potential health risks associated with GM crop production, as there remains a collective uneasiness in terms of lasting implications. To begin, there is a large amount of unpredictability when it comes to genetic engineering. According to Conner & Jacobs (1999), scientists hold serious concern about the after effects of GM crops, particularly as it relates to the altering of our gene expression. As noted by Sayanova et al. (1997), genetically engineered foods may lead to disruption of metabolism in unpredictable ways, including the development of new toxic compounds in the body or an increase in already existing ones. When genes are inserted at random in the DNA, their location can influence their function, as well as the function of natural genes, and “insertion mutations” can scramble, delete or relocate the genetic code near the insertion site (IRT, 2014). Even worse, scientists estimate that GM crops are capable of creating 100s or 1000s of these “mutations” throughout the genome, and due to the overall lack of published studies, scientists are mostly unaware to the extent of their effects. In a nutshell, that means that this technology has the ability to literally re-write our genetic code! Alongside the unpredictability concerns of GM crops, research has found that foods that have been genetically modified pose numerous threats of auto-immune diseases. For example, scientists have found foods that have been genetically altered through the addition of a gene can sometimes have an increase in anti-nutrients (natural or synthetic compounds that hinder the absorption of minerals). These compounds, which include phytoestrogens, phytic acid and glucinins, have been shown to cause infertility problems in sheep and cattle (Liener, 1994). This is particularly troubling when you consider that almost 90% of corn and soybeans grown in the U.S. are altered in this way. The most common example of this “gene addition” is the Monsanto-created genetically engineered crop plants that are resistant to herbicides. Also referred to as “Roundup Ready” crops, these plants allow farmers to spray insecticides and not have it affect the crops. Research has found that the widely available Roundup Ready soybean indeed may display an increase in anti-nutrients (Padgette et al. 1996; ctd. in Dona & Arvanitoyannis, 2009). In addition to the “Roundup Ready” crops, the FDA approved Monsanto bovine growth hormone (rBGH), which is injected into dairy cows to force them to produce more milk also poses health concerns in the form of increased cancer risk. Scientists have noted that significantly higher levels (400-500 percent or more) of a potent chemical hormone, Insulin-Like Growth Factor (igf-1), in the milk and dairy products of rBGH injected cows, could pose serious hazards such as human breast, prostate, and colon cancer (Cummins, 2013). Indeed, numerous research studies have shown that people with elevated igf-1 levels are much more susceptible to cancer. Furthermore, in terms of our health, there is threat of gene transfer to non-target species. Among experts, there is a major concern of crops that have been genetically modified to resist herbicides cross-breeding with weeds and resulting in the transfer of the herbicide-resistant gene from crops to weeds. Known as “superweeds,” this spawning has had a detrimental effect on farming techniques, forcing farmers to use more potent herbicides to fight off the infestation (and obviously having grave implications on our health). The most well known of the superweeds, “pigweed,” has recently plagued a good portion of the crops in the southern US, including 100,000 acres in Georgia alone (Caulcutt, 2009). Although this problem is not just regional, as new reincarnations like horseweed and Johnsongrass are on the rise all across the US. And on top of that, the herbicide in question is Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crop seeds, which amount to 90% of the soybeans and 80% of the corn grown across the U.S. According to Kilman (2010), some 40% of U.S. land planted to corn and soybeans is likely to harbor at least some Roundup-resistant superweeds by the middle of this decade. Alongside these, other concerns of genetically modified foods point to: socio-ecological impacts, an increased antibiotic resistance in humans, increased pesticide residues, damage to beneficial insects and soil fertility, infant mortality and a change in the earth’s natural biodiversity. Critiques As the GMO trend continues to gain steam and infiltrate mainstream culture, there remains a growing amount of criticism about the reliability of its current framework. Critiques are wide-ranging, and include everything from ethical and moral issues, to ownership and patent issues, to the overall lack of published literature and studies on the topic. Among these critiques, arguably the loudest one stems from ambiguity pertaining to the regulation of GMO labeling. As it stands today, the FDA does not require food companies to label foods that are genetically modified. Their current policy is governed by the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act which is only concerned with food additives, not whole foods or food products that are considered “GRAS” – generally recognized as safe (Whitman, 2000). Essentially, food products only require labeling if there is a nutritional or food safety property that is different from what consumers would expect of that particular food (Byrne et al, 2014). For example, if a genetically modified food has a certain protein that may be an allergen and is not typically present (such as a peanut protein in a soybean), then it must be labeled. Otherwise, the FDA does not find genetic engineering to have “systematic” differences in nutrient breakdown and health concerns in comparison to traditional breeding methods, and is therefore not required to be labeled under US food safety laws (FDA, 1992). The current policy allows for companies to voluntarily submit information about their products, but it is not required and not federally regulated. While there are a number of third party verification programs that denote GMO-free products (such as the Non-GMO Project and CNG Certification, which I examine deeper in my previous post), currently the only way to ensure that your food is certified non-GMO is to buy products labeled “USDA Organic.” Another widespread critique of the GMO trend points to the overall lack of scientific research dedicated to studies of safety. It has now been almost exactly 20 years since the introduction of genetically modified foods and there still exist only a handful of studies. In fact, according to Domingo (2007), no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist, and even animal studies are few and far between. Up until this point, the main approach by the agricultural industry has been to use comparisons between GM crops and non-GM crops. When a lab determines that a GM crop is not significantly different than its non-GM counterpart, they are regarded as “substantially equivalent,” and therefore regarded as just as safe as the non-GM version (Pusztai, 2009). For major food corporations, this creates a loophole that allows for GM crops to become patented without animal testing. However, the term “substantially equivalent” is not clearly defined by law and is not regulated by the FDA (Millstone et al, 1999). This is significant when you consider the typical amount of testing and lab studies that are mandatory when any new drug is approved by the FDA. As Dona & Arvanitoyannis (2009) argue, “the absence of adequate safety studies and the lack of evidence that GM food is unsafe cannot be interpreted as proof that it is safe” (p. 164). Unless these policies are changed, this lack of published studies will allow the influx of foods with GMO strains to continue to infiltrate our food supply, as well as keep us in the dark in regard to their true implications on our health. Along with the overall lack of literature, there is the issue of conflict of interest between big business agriculture and the overall health and wellbeing of our population. Particularly in biotech research and development, genetically modified crops are almost exclusively the product of private industry. As argued by Pinstrup-Andersen & Schioler (2001), this is in part due to the fact that new technologies are more expensive than existing ones, and the biotech industry was able to gather the necessary funds to develop these technologies long before public awareness of GM crops could lead to publicly generated funding for GM crop development. Consequently, because this is a bottom line business, the large corporations that dominate the industry become driven by profits and not concerned with investing in expensive research and regulatory costs to produce crops that must be heavily subsidized for poor farmers to afford. As noted by Conway (1998), the main goal of private research is on capital-intensive farming, as research to feed the poor is less attractive because it involves long lead times, risks of unpredictable agricultural conditions, and beneficiaries with no ability to pay. As a result, we are left with a hegemonic hierarchy in terms of food commerce, further distancing us from the idealistic narrative of GM foods original purpose: their ability to increase the food supply and feed the poor. Moreover, further critiques and issues of the GMO trend arise with the definition and treatment of intellectual property. As noted by Wu & Butz (2004), intellectual property issues are central to the progress of the GMO movement “because whereas science and technology move forward through the sharing of ideas and resources, intellectual property ambiguities and restrictions can often limit the valuable diffusion of science and technology” (p. 46). The issue of who “owns” a particular event (i.e. the successful transformation) of a GM crop and who can develop it further has become so economically important and controversial that there are now a number of cases involving this issue being litigated (Woodward, 2003). As noted by Cayford (2004), there are many that consider this issue of intellectual property to be one of the most important obstacles to the development and adoption of GM crops in the developing world. Discussion The purpose of this post was to offer insight from a scientific perspective and bring an overall awareness to the topic of GMO foods. Lately we have heard so much about GMOs in the mainstream media and popular culture, but I think as a whole we are still in the dark about a lot of this stuff. What scares me as a consumer is the power that these corporations have, not only from an economic standpoint, but also in terms of the scope of their technology. It makes me wonder what’s next. Will it only be a matter of time before this technology spills into other aspects of life? More importantly, what concerns me is the overall lack of research that is being done. To me, it almost seems intentional and comes off as having a “back-alley” vibe to it, like these corporations are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I think if we are ever going to get a handle on this as a society, it is important to continue to push for activism and support non-GMO movements such as the Non-GMO Project and Think Global Act Local, because at the end of the day, we as the consumer control the marketplace. If we decide to not purchase foods that are GMO, they will ultimately fail. However, that is assuming that litigation will eventually get passed where labeling becomes mandatory and we can identify what is GMO! In the meantime, if you are curious about the amount of GMO foods in your diet, check out the website Care2.com’s list of the top 20 “Frankenfoods” to avoid. References: Aris, A., & Leblanc, S. (2011). Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology, 31(4), 528-533. Bakshi, A. (2003). Potential adverse health effects of genetically modified crops. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B: Critical Reviews, 6(3), 211-226. Beyer, P., Al-Babili, S., Ye, X., Lucca, P., Schaub, P., Welsch, R., & Potrykus, I. (2002). Golden rice: Introducing the β-carotene biosynthesis pathway into rice endosperm by genetic engineering to defeat vitamin A deficiency. The Journal of nutrition, 132(3), 506S-510S. Bruening, G., & Lyons, J. (2000). The case of the FLAVR SAVR tomato. California Agriculture, 54(4), 6-7. Byrne, P., Pendell, D., & Graff, G. (2014). Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. Caulcutt, C. (2009). Superweed’explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands. France, 24, 19. Cayford, J. (2004). Breeding sanity into the GM food debate. Issues in Science and Technology 49–56. Conway, G. (1998). The doubly green revolution: food for all in the twenty-first century. Cornell University Press. Cummins, R. (2014). GMO Update. Litalee..com Domingo, J. L. (2007). Toxicity studies of genetically modified plants: a review of the published literature. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 47(8), 721-733. Dona, A., & Arvanitoyannis, I. S. (2009). Health risks of genetically modified foods. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 49(2), 164-175. Food and Drug Adminisration. 1992. Statement of policy: Foods derived from new plant varieties. Fed. Reg. 57:22984–23002. Institute for Responsible Technology. (2014). 65 Health Risks of GM Foods. Retrieved from http://responsibletechnology.org/gmo-dangers/65-health-risks/2notes Kilman, S. (2010). Superweed outbreak triggers arms race. Wall Street Journal, 4. Millstone, E., Brunner, E. and Mayer, S. (1999) Beyond substantial equivalence. Nature 401, 525-526. Nap, J. P., Metz, P. L., Escaler, M., & Conner, A. J. (2003). The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. The Plant Journal, 33(1), 1-18. P. Byrne, D. Pendell, & G. Graff (2014). Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods. CSU food nutrition series: Fact sheet No. 9.371, 1-5 Pinstrup-Andersen, P., & Schioler, E. (2003). Seeds of contention: World hunger and the global controversy over GM crops. Intl Food Policy Res Inst. Storer, N. P., Peck, S. L., Gould, F., Van Duyn, J. W., & Kennedy, G. G. (2003). Spatial processes in the evolution of resistance in Helicoverpa zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Bt transgenic corn and cotton in a mixed agroecosystem: a biology-rich stochastic simulation model. Journal of Economic Entomology, 96(1), 156-172. Woosley, G. (2013). GMO Timeline: A History of Genetically Modified Foods - Rosebud Magazine Hydroponics Lifestyle Growing And Entertainment! Whitman, D. B. (2000). Genetically modified foods: harmful or helpful?. CSA Discovery Guides. World Health Organization (2014). Frequently asked questions on genetically modified foods. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/ Wu, F., & Butz, W. (2004). The future of genetically modified crops: Lessons from the Green Revolution (Vol. 161). Rand Corporation. Young, A. L. 1999. U.S.: Develop and deploy. World & I 14:154–156.
3 Comments
In today’s post, I take a critical approach in examining certain food labels to determine the legitimacy and truthfulness of their purported claims. As a society, recent times have witnessed a paradigm shift in the infrastructure of our domestic food system. No longer the cottage industry it once was back in the day, the food business has catapulted into one of the most powerful institutions worldwide. With revenue streams totaling $377 billion in 2013, food commerce has taken over as an industry giant as it consistently ranks in the top-5 nationally. And a large reason for this booming enterprise is the masterful marketing of food products. Major food corporations spend millions upon millions annually for market researchers to come up with the next popular food buzz word. Just to give you an idea of the influence that food marketing has on our purchasing habits, according to a 2013 Nielsen survey, the food industry sold almost $41 billion worth of food last year labeled with the word "natural," which is essentially just an overly vague term that has no federal regulation by the USDA. Nowadays because there is so much at stake in terms of dollars, food marketing and labeling has materialized into the Wild West. It has become impossible to know who to trust, as labeling has become more nuanced than ever. In an attempt to help with some of the confusion, I take a critical eye to 5 different food labels: the American Heart Association heart check label, the “Look for Whole Grains” stamp, the “Farm Fresh” label, the “Certified Naturally Grown” label and the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label, to understand what they mean and examine the justification of their claims. My goal in doing this post is to generate awareness. As it stands, I think this topic is more relevant now than ever before. With a growing population that is becoming more and more health conscious, these labels are still tricky as hell to read and if you don’t know what you are looking for, it’s easy to get overwhelmed. So let’s get it crackin… American Heart Association Heart-Check Label Universally known and recognized as the preeminent authority when it comes to our overall health, the American Heart Association heart check label has become synonymous with healthiness. The label is seen on a litany of grocery store products and is designed to help consumers make healthier food choices. In terms of legitimacy, I think this and the USDA Organic label are found to be the most recognized by society for their label standards. And I would tend to agree. After reviewing their certification guidelines on the AHA website, the program utilizes 6 stringent categories of certification with each having a different set of nutrition requirements. The program also utilizes independent third-party lab testing and most of its nutrient requirements are per FDA/USDA RACC. Additionally, all approved products must meet federal requirements for making a coronary heart disease claim (AHA, 2014). Overall, they set a pretty high bar for their products. My Critique with this Label In terms of its ambiguity, I think that this label is pretty legitimate as far as its health claims, but my main critique is that it does not regulate where products come from. By this I mean there is no regulation as it relates to farming methods, manufacturing protocols, etc. This can become problematic because ingredients and nutrient values on packaging can be misleading. A prime example I can point to here is the ambiguity we see in fortified food products, an area which is not currently regulated by the AHA. According to the European Food Information Council (2014), fortified foods are defined as, “foods or food products to which extra nutrients have been added.” In accordance with the FDA (2014), the addition of a nutrient to a food may be appropriate “if it corrects a dietary insufficiency, restores the level of the nutrient lost during processing or storing, helps balance vitamin, mineral and protein content or is used to replace a traditional food (i.e., meal replacements).” For you the consumer, this causes problems because it allows for manufacturers to produce foods lacking in nutritional value to add nutrients (such as fiber, calcium, etc.) to bring their dietary profile up to par and fit AHA guidelines. This is problematic for 2 reasons: 1) because these vitamins aren’t in their natural form, they are processed differently by your body, and 2) nowadays essentially everything in a grocery store can be fortified and “made” healthy. We especially see this in things like sugary cereals and “healthy” energy bars. More troubling is the fact that research has found certain populations, especially children, are at risk of getting too much supplementation from eating fortified foods (EWG, 2014). I bring this up because a good amount of the certified foods on the AHA approved list are indeed fortified. And many of the products, such as some juices and snack products, would most likely not make the cut if they weren’t. In addition to fortified foods, another reason why the regulation of farming methods is so significant is because the overall nutritional value of foods can be greatly affected by it. For example, when it comes to fish and seafood, there is a wide margin in nutrition between farmed-raised versus wild-caught, particularly in omega-3 and monounsaturated fats. Additionally, because farm-raised fish do not have access to a wild diet, they are fed pellets of chicken feces, corn meal, soy, genetically modified canola oil and other fish containing concentrations of toxins, which obviously has a detrimental effect to our health (Pure Zing, 2013). This also pertains to beef products, where grass-fed beef is shown to have higher levels of conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), less total fat, more omega-3 fats and more antioxidants in comparison to grain-fed beef. However, with all of this being said, I still think that the AHA label holds weight as something you should pay attention to. Just be careful and be sure to read all of the listed ingredients on anything that you buy with it. “Look For Whole Grains” Stamp The “Look for Whole Grains” stamp is a label that has become increasingly more popular in supermarkets and health food stores over the past decade. This label is predominately found on mostly grain products, including: bread, pasta, cereal, etc. and its purpose is to delineate products that are whole grain (meaning that they have all parts of the grain, including the bran and germ). The program was instituted by the Whole Grains Council, and consists of 2 labels, 1) the 100% Stamp – which assures you that a food contains a full serving or more of whole grain in each labeled serving and that ALL the grain is whole grain, and 2) the basic Whole Grain Stamp – which appears on products containing at least half a serving of whole grain per labeled serving. The “Look for Whole Grains” stamp has garnered widespread usage, as of October 2014, the label is on over 10,000 products in over 42 countries. My Critique with this Label As far as the label itself, the language is pretty straightforward in that it is not misleading. Overall, it serves its purpose by informing the amount of whole grains in a particular product. However, where I think we tend to miss the boat as a consumer is by associating the whole grains label with the overall healthiness of the product. We think that just because a product is listed as whole grain, it must be good for us. However, research shows that may not necessarily be the case. For example, Mozaffarian et al. (2013) conducted an interpretive analysis on products containing the “Look for Whole Grains” label, and found that while WG-stamped products in fact contained higher fiber and lower trans-fat totals, they were also higher in sugars and calories when compared to products without the stamp. However, I think that the larger problem with the regulating of “whole grains” in our food products is that there are no federal guidelines. As it stands, there is no single standard for defining a product “whole grain,” as the “Look for Whole Grains” Stamp is a third-party verification agency and not federally regulated. As a result, you can walk into your local Ralph’s and find a box of Lucky Charm’s with the “Look for Whole Grains” logo proudly affixed on the right hand corner. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather get my fiber from sweet potatoes and broccoli, not ‘me’ Lucky Charms. Additionally, there is a lot of ambiguity in how manufacturers label wheat. From the standard whole wheat classification, you have your multigrain, 7 grain, stoneground, semolina, durum wheat, and enriched flour just to name a few. Technically, some of these are considered “whole” and some aren’t (to decipher would take an entire separate blog post). Furthermore, unless you are buying organic, you can go ahead and assume that you are eating GMO grains. That is why personally I choose to refrain from wheat and grains altogether to prevent this madness! But if you must consume grains, opt for the sprouted variety that you can find at most health food stores and always go organic. You can use the “Look for Whole Grains” stamp as a guide, but be sure to check food labels for other possible ingredients. "Farm Fresh" The Farm Fresh Label (or its many variations) is a label that is seen predominately on egg products and is meant to delineate the freshness of a particular product. The label has gained popularity as of late due to the success of farmer’s markets and the local food movement. A lot of people connect local farming with the term “farm fresh” and thus look for it at the supermarket. Due to this, food manufacturers try to slap the term on as many products as possible in an attempt to generate hype and boost purported health benefits. My Critique with this Label EVERYTHING. Of all of the labels on this list, the “farm fresh” label is definitely the most ambiguous. All this label really means is that the eggs were “freshly picked” after the hen lays the egg. Although “freshly picked” is highly ambiguous as well, as there is no regulation on how soon the farmer has to pick them (how fresh is fresh?). And even then, although the eggs are technically fresh when they are hatched, unless you are buying local, they most likely have been sitting in crates for days on end and shipped all over the country. However, the more pressing concern is that the label means absolutely nothing as it pertains to the welfare of the animal (in fact, most of the chickens that lay farm fresh eggs are raised inhumanely). These inhumane conditions include ones where hens are raised in battery cages and confined in extremely small spaces where they are unable to spread their wings (according to the Humane Society, each caged laying hen is afforded only 67 square inches of cage space—less space than a single sheet of letter-sized paper on which to live her entire life). On top of that, because these eggs are not considered organic, hens are fed GMO-based chicken feed. Definitely not very appetizing… And definitely not “farm fresh.” Essentially, this label is just a clever marketing term by companies to get you to buy their product. So you can feel free to disregard this label at the supermarket, because it means nothing. Certified Naturally Grown Label The Certified Naturally Grown label has come into popularity recently in many specialty health food stores and local food operations as a marker for quality organic foods. As the increased public awareness and interest in organic production methods continues to skyrocket, this label is increasingly being sought after by the health-savvy consumer looking to make healthier and more ethical food choices. The label is commonly found on many meat, fruit and vegetable products. According to Greener Choices (2014), the Certified Naturally Grown label means that “the farm where the food is grown uses the same farming methods as certified organic farms, but is not independently verified by a USDA-accredited certification agency and not subject to the legal enforcement of the USDA.” The reason this certification came to fruition was out of a response to the costly and often politicized nature of the USDA Organic certification process. There were many farmers who did not want to or could not afford to participate in the USDA certification program, and wanted an alternative certification system that was cheaper and had fewer requirements. Essentially, the CNG program was designed for small farmers, such as distributors for farmer’s markets, roadside stands and community supported agriculture projects to be able to attain organic certification of their products. As it has garnered momentum, it has come to be recognized as the grassroots alternative to the USDA system. However, the main difference here is that instead of annual inspections by a USDA accredited certifying agency, they police themselves, with CNG farms being inspected by other CNG farms. While not USDA approved, the label is actually pretty significant in that there are clearly defined standards and procedures that have to be followed. Along with their precise certification guidelines, CNG farms are lauded for their transparency, collaboration and community involvement, as all participating farms completed applications and scorecards are available online to the public, and any prospective farms interested in becoming CNG certified can download registration information off of their website (CNG, 2014). In addition, all CNG farms are subject to random inspection (CNG, 2014). My Critique with this Label Overarching, I really don't have a whole lot of criticism with this label. As far as ambiguity, this label is definitely one of the more valid ones. The main critique that I have noted with CNG farms and their labeling program is that they pose the risk of a conflict of interest. Due to the framework of the CNG certification system, which relies heavily on peer-reviewed inspections, there remains the possibility of unethical favors and benefits being exchanged or cutting corners by participating farms. Although with that being said, the CNG program does try to mitigate this by not allowing farmers to “trade” inspections – meaning that a farmer cannot inspect the farm of the individual who inspected his/her farm, however because the program is reliant on a trust system, the possibility remains. Another common critique of the Certified Naturally Grown label is that it is not federally regulated. The program merely acts as a third-party verification agency, and although this may be unsettling for some consumers, the research that I have done has uncovered overwhelmingly positive reviews of the program. Therefore, as it pertains to food labels, CNG appears to be one of the more sought after right behind the USDA Organic label. This label is definitely worth paying attention to! Non-GMO Project Verified Label The “Non-GMO Project Verified” seal is one of the newer labels to come on the food marketing scene. The Non-GMO Project began in 2005 out of a movement in Berkeley, CA, where consumers began to question the amount of GMO in their products. The program initially materialized out of the “People Want to Know Campaign,” a letter-writing initiative which rallied over 161 grocery stores to protest current legislation. Fast forward to today, and what once began as a grassroots movement has become the authority in the testing of GMO foods. The label has become common in stores and markets, as it is affixed to a bevy of items, ranging from vitamins and supplements, to packaged/frozen goods, to pet products. The label is sought after by consumers looking to make verified Non-GMO choices.
The label has importance for us because, as it stands today, federal law does not require manufacturers to disclose the amount of GMO in their products. As a non-profit, the Non-GMO Project is currently North America’s only third party verification and labeling for non-GMO food and products. And on the whole, the project has had quite an impact on the marketplace. According to the project website, there are currently over 20,000 Non-GMO Project Verified products from 2,200 brands, representing well over $7 billion in annual sales. My Critique with this Label: All things considered, I definitely respect the guidelines and standards of this label. There are clearly defined protocols that each product must go through, and because the project is non-profit, there is not a conflict of interest with big business. However, there are still inconsistencies, as ambiguities remain. To begin, there is vagueness as to what constitutes GMO-free. According to the Non-GMO Project website, “GMO free” and similar claims are not legally or scientifically defensible due to limitations of testing methodology. Therefore, the Non-GMO Project’s verification seal is not a “GMO free” claim, it is what they consider verification for products made according to best practices for GMO avoidance. While they do maintain an "Action Threshold" of 0.9%, (where any product containing more than 0.9% GMO must be labeled), monitoring is done independently as there is no federal guidelines. Among industry circles, the main critique points to logistical issues (not so much as it relates to this label per-se, but more about the larger movement). From a broad perspective, there is a growing consensus of people who find the growing “GMO-Free” trend to have serious implications for both the manufacturer and consumer. For major food companies, transitioning to GMO-free products requires a complete change to their infrastructure, resulting in higher costs and logistical issues in securing enough non-GMO sources. Particularly as it relates to traditionally heavy sprayed crops, such as soy and corn, securing non-GMO varietals is a challenge because the majority of these crops in the U.S. have some level on contamination in them. In fact, according to a Reuters (2014) report, more than 90% of the corn and soybeans that are grown in the U.S. are GMO strains. This has turned the non-GMO commodity supply chain into a big business of its own. Almost definitely, this will have a trickle-down effect on us the consumer, as companies will be forced to raise food prices to offset the production costs. However, as it relates to the label, I think that the costs justify the action. Right now the Non-GMO Project is really all we have to help fight against the production of genetically engineered foods. In addition, their sound certification guidelines and track record as a trustworthy source make this label one to pick up whenever possible. Discussion I know what you’re thinking: buying food shouldn’t be this damn difficult! And I agree, but unfortunately that is the reality that we now live in. What sucks is that things are only getting worse. With the current farming landscape in this country, experts are predicting an even bigger increase in GMO contaminated products as we move ahead. However, it is important to remember that you hold all of the power in what you choose to buy. By being a more educated buyer, you can make better informed decisions about the food you purchase. Overarching, as a consumer, you must always be looking to exercise your agency to help combat these unsavory conditions. As bad as things have gotten, it’s now on us now to take action. Along with doing your part individually, look to start up some local CSAs in your community, work with your local legislation to bring more Farmer’s markets and local food to your neighborhood, or even grow your own food!! Because as it stands now, the food industry has no plans of slowing down, and they definitely don’t have our best interest at hand. References: Cage-Free vs. Battery-Cage Eggs : The Humane Society of the United States. (2009, September 1). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/confinement_farm/facts/cage-free_vs_battery-cage.html CFR - Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=104.20 CNG - Home Page. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from https://www.naturallygrown.org/ Esterl, M. (2013, November 6). Some Food Companies Ditch 'Natural' Label. Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304470504579163933732367084 Frequently Asked Questions. (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.eufic.org/page/en/page/FAQ/faqid/fortified-enriched-food-products/ Gillam, C. (2014, February 18). U.S. food companies find going 'non-GMO' no easy feat. Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/18/us-usa-food-gmo-analysis-SBREA1H1G420140218 GreenerChoices.org | Eco-labels center | Label search results. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/label.cfm?LabelID=313 Heart-Check Food Certification Program. (2014, October 1). Retrieved December 11, 2014, from http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter/HeartSmartShopping/Heart-Check-Food-Certification-Program_UCM_300133_Article.jsp# How Much is Too Much? (2014). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.ewg.org/research/how-much-is-too-much Mozaffarian, R., Lee, R., Kennedy, M., Ludwig, D., Mozaffarian, D., & Gortmaker, S. (2013). Identifying whole grain foods: A comparison of different approaches for selecting more healthful whole grain products. Public Health Nutrition, 2255-2264. Seven Reasons to Avoid Farm Raised Salmon. (2013, January 1). Retrieved December 12, 2014, from http://www.purezing.com/living/food_articles/living The Non-GMO Project. (n.d.). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://www.nongmoproject.org/ The Whole Grains Council. (2014). Retrieved December 14, 2014, from http://wholegrainscouncil.org/ Recently alternative food networks have garnered recognition within the mainstream media and the political sphere as a pioneering social movement, in doing so contributing to the paradigm shift in our collective views of food. The mobilizing efforts of AFNs have become widespread, as it has become impossible nowadays to go shopping, check Twitter, go on Facebook, or watch TV without seeing some type of rhetoric advocating locally-grown, organic, and/or sustainable food methods. Initially originating from the organic food movement that began over 50 years ago, the main purpose of AFNs has been centered on looking for alternatives to our conventional food system, one which has been chastised for its use of unethical, unsustainable and mass-produced food production methods. In addition, documentaries such as Food Inc. and In Organic We Trust have helped to catapult AFNs into mainstream consciousness and popular culture. But are AFNs everything that they are cracked up to be? There is a growing consensus of people who question their legitimacy and whether or not a model of its kind can flourish on a large scale. Scholarly critiques point to issues of power and privilege, ambiguity in policy, economic considerations among others. In hopes of contributing to the conversation, I take an in-depth approach in examining these institutions to identify how they can be improved. Let’s check it out… What are Alternative Food Networks? Feenstra (2002) identifies alternative food networks as, “A collaborative effort to build more locally based, self reliant food economies – one in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution and consumption is integrated to enhance the economic, environmental and social health of a particular place.” Overarching, AFNs represent a paradigm shift in food production, from that of conventional methods (which employ a large-scale distribution model and increase distance between producer and consumer, to an alternative method, that of which is geographically localized and promotes close proximity between producer and consumer. In popular discourse, AFNs take on many different aliases, being referred to as: local food movement, Alternative Agrifood Movement (AAM), organic food movement, among others. These various designations manifest themselves in the form of farmer’s markets, community supported agriculture programs (CSA’s) and a number of other sustainable agricultural practices. While AFNs have gained traction recently as a noteworthy cause, they have been around for decades. In fact, the seeds of AFNs trace back all the way to 1933 with the enactment of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), an amendment which would set the stage for today’s agricultural subsidies and farmer support systems (Dimitri, Effland, & Conklin, 2005). Initially implemented to protect family farms from economic collapse during the Great Depression, these government subsidy programs slowly gained control over time with the help of the USDA (Rausser, 1992). Along with providing a safety net for local farmers, the AAA allowed “commodity crops,” such as corn, wheat and soybeans to be bought at subsidized rates and used as primary ingredients in a number of cheaper, “value-added” food products. This framework would ultimately set the stage for the “commodity crop” market, which was marked by an overabundance in production of wheat, corn, soy, etc. products. Throughout the late 1970s and 80s, narrow profit margins forced many food and farm businesses to adhere to the “commodity crop” ideology and scale up production to survive. In addition, there was an emphasis placed on the consolidation of farms to increase efficiency, which would lead to the creation of large food corporations, and essentially kill off the local farming market, making it almost impossible for these businesses to stay afloat. Moving into the turn of the century, the idea of local food was non-existent at worst, a fledgling niche market at best, as food that had traditionally come from regional markets was now being outsourced where labor cost was cheaper. However, as small farms tried to stay in business, they began selling directly to customers and specialty retailers, hoping to forego the production costs of a middleman (Stevenson et al., 2011). These survival strategies, along with a growing consumer interest in the ethics of food production has prompted a resurgence in the local food market. Today, AFNs are a booming trend and continue to grow at a rapid pace. According to the Agricultural Marketing Service (2013), farmer’s markets have grown in size from 1,755 markets in 1994 to 8,144 in 2013, and community supported agriculture (CSAs) have grown from only 2 in 1985 to over 3,000 in 2009. The Benefits of Alternative Food Networks Unless you have been living under a rock for the past 20 years, you probably have heard in some context or another the purported benefits of AFNs and locally-grown food. Recently, AFNs have engendered a mainstream following from a growing population of people who are excited about the notion of “ethical eating.” Ask any self-proclaimed “locavore,” and they will jump at the chance to tell you the benefits of AFNs. The goals of these networks are wide-ranging, and include: improved access by community members to a fresher, more nutritious diet; better marketing practices that create more direct links between farmers and consumers; improved working/living conditions for farm and other food system labor and improved food and agricultural policies that promote local food production, processing and consumption (Feenstra, 2002). In addition, many argue that these institutions help to build community and participatory democracy, and serve as sites of contestation against a globalized food system (Kloppenberg, Henrickson, and Stevenson, 1996). By allowing the local consumer to choose where he/she buys their food and where it comes from, AFNs generate resistive agency pathways for local communities by challenging the traditions and ideals of big-business agriculture. Due to the sheer number of individuals involved with the movement, AFNs are considered one of the larger social justice movements in the modern era. Additionally, as it relates to community involvement, AFNs are celebrated for their ability to promote dialogue and community interaction through the dissemination of health information and related discourse. In terms of economic impact, research has found that food (typically fruits and vegetables) produced and consumed locally creates more economic activity in an area than does a comparable food produced and imported from a non-local source (CEFS, 2013). In addition, for local communities, an often overlooked benefit of AFNs is the role they play in propagating an entrepreneurial culture. Along with contributing to the local economy, AFNs can offer youth a place to find meaningful work without leaving the community (CEFS, 2013). A Critical Analysis of Alternative Food Networks Over the past 20 years, AFNs have gone from a diminutive, counter-culture fad to a legitimate threat to our corporatized modern food system. Through their ability to mobilize resources and garner support, AFNs have helped to usher in a new consciousness in how we regard food as a resource. However, while AFNs have proven their potential to offer new and promising alternatives to our food crisis, there are many ideological issues that they do not address. For one, their claim as a true “participatory democracy” and equal access institution is problematic in many ways. For example, AFNs are commonly praised for their ability to offer quality, nutritious food to all members in a community, regardless of gender, class or socio-cultural background. By providing directly to consumers, farmers and growers can cut production costs and make food more readily available and affordable. This rhetoric is discursively constructed and reinforced through idealistic portrayals of nature and agriculture. Essentially, AFNs are depicted as “food utopias,” a place where the ethical and social issues of our everyday culture are kept out and everyone comes together through the common theme of good food. However, by adopting this romanticized view of agriculture and the food production process, AFNs simultaneously work to re-write the narrative of our country's agricultural past; a past which has been predicated historically upon, among others: disparities in access, poor/unfair labor conditions, and gendered/racial discrimination. This “revisionist history” allows those harsh conditions to be appropriated and transformed into commodities (local food), which allows them to be more palatable and accepted within the mainstream. Furthermore, while AFNs have traditionally been praised for their ethical and moral stances towards equality, a closer examination finds that they remain highly politicized institutions and carry many of the same cultural values and patterns as other social realms of society. Particularly as it relates to issues of access and privilege, AFNs unintentionally reinforce dominant ideologies through hegemonic discourse. Allen et. al (2003) note similarly the lack of attention that has been given to questions of power and privilege in the contemporary US alternative food movement. Speaking from a base level, AFNs are typically available to those consumers who have the agency to access them. Along these lines, Guthman (2008) notes that AFNs have tended to cater to relatively well-off consumers, in part because organic food has been positioned as a niche product, and in part because many of the spaces of alternative food practice have been designed and located to secure market opportunities and decent prices for farmers. Guthman (2003) also notes that while organic food used to be a form of counter-culture cuisine, it has now been relegated to “yuppie chow.” While eating local has in fact become somewhat of a novelty among upper class circles, the more important implication is that the spatiality of these institutions allows for an embedded elitist ideology to persist, in doing so limiting agency to lower income and marginalized communities and further contradicting the ideal of equal access. Another problematic with the discursive construction of AFNs “food utopia” framework is that it fails to account for the larger issue of health disparities. Because AFNs are commonly recognized for their ability to provide all members of a community a place at the proverbial table, any issues pertaining to health and nutrition are pushed aside and located at the individual level. Along this scope, any interventions to improve diets and related health outcomes have largely targeted individual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors (Huang & Glass, 2008). However, by focusing exclusively on the individual without addressing larger systemic issues, AFNs reinforce hegemony through their suggestion of a bootstrap mentality. As Neff et. al (2009) note, “Health disparities go deeper than individual choice, nutrition, or price. They reach outwards to community factors like access and deeper to broad social, economic, and political forces that impact food supply, nutrient quality, and affordability” (p. 283). A further issue with the current framework of AFNs is their ambiguous use of the term “local” when referring to local food. Currently there is no generally accepted definition of “local” food. According to the USDA (2011), although “local” has a geographic connotation, there is no consensus on a definition in terms of the distance between production and consumption. Definitions related to geographic distance between production and sales vary by regions, companies, consumers, and local food markets. For the casual local food enthusiast, this is simply a case of semantics. But for the majority of “locavores” who support local food campaigns such as “Buy Local” and “Think Globally act Locally” (which go by the mantra that buying local food supports particular communities and economies, which in turn maintain certain lifestyles and cultural values) (Doherty, 2006), the term “local” becomes significant as distance takes great meaning. The question then becomes: how local is local enough? Since the term gets socially constructed, it takes on a plethora of other socio-economic questions, such as: determining who holds the power to interpret its meaning, zoning issues, etc. By definition, the term “local” is exclusionary, and it is this exclusivity that is the essence of AFN’s critique. Discussion The purpose of this post was to provide a context into the local food and alternative food network phenomenon and hopefully foster a dialogue and promote critical thinking. While there are no short term solutions, by simply creating a conversation we can begin to get the ball rolling. As it stands, AFNs are a much better alternative for sustainability than that of our current food system, but they are still extremely flawed. The bottom line is that we live in a capitalistic society and money will always talk. While I think that the focus of AFNs are in the right place, implementation will always be a challenge because of the corporatization of our modern food systems. Any legitimate solutions will have to take place at the structural level. Unless we can change the infrastructure to de-emphasize competition among businesses, this problem will always exist (it will just manifest itself in different ways). However in the meantime, that doesn’t change the fact that the cost of organic food is extremely overpriced. Especially considering only 80 years ago there was no such thing as “organic,” there was just food. Now because there is so much poorly manufactured food out there, we have to delineate the good stuff with an organic label, in turn charging way more than necessary. It’s like the bottled water phenomenon. Back in the day, there was just water. It didn’t have to be treated, it didn’t have to be filtered, it was just water! But now because water is so contaminated, we have to bottle the good stuff and sell it way overpriced too. It’s a vicious cycle. What do you think? How we fix this food crisis? More importantly, how can we eat more healthily, sustainably, and ethically without making six figures a year? References: Allen, P., Fitzsimmons, M., Goodman, M., & Warner, K. (2003). Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California. Journal of rural studies, 19(1), 61-75. Dimitri, C., Effland, A. B., & Conklin, N. C. (2005). The 20th century transformation of US agriculture and farm policy. Dunning, R. (2013). Research-Based Support and Extension Outreach for Local Food Systems. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from http://www.cefs.ncsu.edu/ Feenstra, G. (2002). Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values, 19(2), 99-106. Doherty, K. E. (2006). Mediating the Critiques of the Alternative Agrifood Movement: Growing Power in Milwaukee (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee). Guthman, J. (2008). Bringing good food to others: investigating the subjects of alternative food practice. cultural geographies, 15(4), 431-447. Huang, T. T. K., & Glass, T. A. (2008). Transforming research strategies for understanding and preventing obesity. Jama, 300(15), 1811-1813. Martinez, S. (2010). Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts, and Issues. Retrieved December 6, 2014, from http://ers.usda.gov/ Neff, R. A., Palmer, A. M., McKenzie, S. E., & Lawrence, R. S. (2009). Food systems and public health disparities. Journal of hunger & environmental nutrition, 4(3-4), 282-314. Rausser, G. C. (1992). Predatory versus productive government: The case of U.S. agricultural policies. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 6(3), 133-157. Stevenson, G. W., Clancy, K., King, R., Lev, L., Ostrom, M., & Smith, S. (2011). Midscale food value chains: An introduction. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 1(4), 27–34. In recent years, the strategic marketing of food labels has become popular within the food and health industries. With the current unsavory conditions of food production worldwide; from usage of antibiotics and hormones in meat processing to the use of herbicides and insecticides in the care of agriculture, consumers are looking more and more to food labeling to provide a roadmap of what is healthy. Food companies know this and use labels as a way to appeal to a growing consumer base that is becoming more and more health-conscious. Although food labels help to guide decision making, there is often vagueness in terms of deciphering usefulness and meaning of what the labels actually stand for. Through the use of environmental communication, these labels help frame messages and entice customers into buying products. An example where this is prevalent is in the aesthetic appeal of labels. Environmental aesthetics are used heavily in food labels as a way to appeal to consumers. Some of the ways they do this are: 1.engagement – food labels engage the consumer by creating sensuous involvement through perception. An example of this would be making the label feel like a participatory experience, in that by choosing more sustainable and healthier options, the consumer feels that they are actively helping the conditions of livestock and agriculture as well as improving both the environment and their health (i.e. by choosing organic, I am “doing my part” 2. interconnectedness – labels help consumers feel interconnected to nature and the environment by helping them feel a part of the production process, not separate from it 3. Appealing to the sublime response – Food labels are designed to elicit a response and emotional reaction. By choosing foods that are healthier and better for the environment, consumers feel stronger emotionally and hold a connection with the environment (you tend to see this a lot in the specific color schemes and design elements that these labels employ). These are just some of the ways that food labels create ambiguous messages. By using a critical lens, I want to examine the ambiguity and confusion associated with some of today’s trendiest food labels as far as their true usefulness as a label and contribution to our health. Below I will look at the labels: organic, all-natural, grass fed, cage free/free range, and hormone free. Organic One food label that has become popular as of late and almost a buzzword within the food and health industry is the term “organic.” According to Allen and Albala (2011), organic refers to, “food produced without using the conventional inputs of modern industrial agriculture; pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, irradiation, or additives” (p, 865). For this reason, organic food is generally safer to eat than conventionally produced food. In the food industry, the term has become almost synonymous with good health, and because of this companies are trying any way possible to slap the term on as many products as possible to justify a raise in prices (organic products are typically more expensive because of increased production costs). Just the other day I walked into Costco, and in the front of the store right as you walk in they have a whole section dedicated to organic products. However, just because a product is labeled organic does not guarantee it is 100% organic. There are three major organic certification labels in the United States: 1. 100% organic – made entirely with organic ingredients (USDA label) 2. Organic – made with at least 95% organic ingredients (USDA label) 3. “Made with organic ingredients” – made with at least 70% organic ingredients (no USDA label). Food products that are made with less than 70% percent organic ingredients cannot be advertised as organic, but can list specific organic ingredients. There is much debate over the nutritional content of organic foods. While the USDA states that there is inconclusive evidence that food grown via organic farming techniques has superior nutrition content than that of conventional farming techniques (Lester, 296), independent research shows different. In the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Virginia Worthington conducted a quantitative analysis comparing the nutrient content of organic versus conventional crops. Her results found, “organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were also better quality and higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones” ( Worthington, 2001, p. 161). All-Natural Another food label that has become buzz-worthy within the food and health industries is the term “all-natural.” The term applies by and large to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors and other artificial additives; such as growth hormones, antibiotics, hydrogenated oils, stabilizers and emulsifiers (FMI). In addition, foods labeled all-natural are required by the USDA to explain what natural ingredients were used. Along with “organic,” food companies also use this term to try to market to health-conscious consumers. The problem with the term is that there is a lot of vagueness in terms of what constitutes as “all-natural,” as its definition takes on different connotations within different contexts. For example, when looking at all-natural meats, specifically beef and fish, companies will often advertise: “no nitrates or nitrites used.” These are chemical compounds used to enhance color and preserve the meat (Shirley, 1975, p. 790). In small quantities, consumption of these are not harmful to human health, therefore, in this case, “all-natural” is not necessarily all that important. On the other hand, when looking at all-natural peanut butter, the term refers to no added hydrogenated oil or trans fat. In peanut butter containing these additives, there is an increase in cholesterol and risk of heart disease, thus “all-natural” in this instance takes on significant meaning. Essentially, depending on the product, all-natural can be meaningful or not. Unlike the term “organic” that deals with the farming techniques of food and is regulated by the government, there is not a true standard of what “all-natural” entails. The fact that all food is processed in some way, either chemically or by temperature, there will always be a sense of ambiguity in determining what kinds of foods are “all-natural” (Welch and Mitchell, 2000, p.4). Grass-Fed A food label that has gained popularity lately not necessarily among the general public, but more among health-conscious circles is the term “grass fed.” According to McCluskey et al. (2006), “grass fed refers to beef from cattle that have been fed only on grasses rather than fed in a feedlot” (p. 2). According to the USDA, for cattle to be considered grass fed, their diet must be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state (USDA, 2007). This must be the feed source for the lifetime of the cattle, with the only exception being milk consumed prior to weaning (USDA, 2007). The distinction of this label is actually one of the more significant ones as far as the nutrition values it carries versus that of its grain-fed counterpart. To begin with, grass fed beef is much lower in fat than grain-fed beef. In addition, the fat that it does carry is compromised of mostly healthier fats. There is a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in grass fed beef. In humans, if omega-6 fats to omega-3 fats exceed 4:1, health issues can arise, like inflammation which can lead to heart disease. This is important because grain fed beef can have ratios that are over 20:1, while grass fed beef is usually around 3:1. In addition, grass fed beef contains CLA, or conjugated linoleic acid, which is also a healthy fat that helps with things like insulin regulation, better immune system health, and the prevention of cancer. CLA also is ideal for body composition because it promotes fat loss and helps to maintain muscle tissue. Grass fed beef has four times the CLA content than grain fed beef. Grass-fed beef is tricky because there are a ton of third party companies that have a seal or logo for grass-fed that is not government regulated. In order to guarantee that your beef is certified grass-fed, it must be stamped with the "USDA Process Verified" logo. Cage-Free/Free Range Of the labels mentioned above, one of the more ambiguous ones would definitely have to be the cage-free and free range labels that apply predominately to eggs. Cage-free refers to eggs that have been laid by hens that were not kept in cages, although there is no regulation of care beyond that. Free range refers to eggs that have been laid by hens that have been allowed access to the outside, however there is not a specified time for how long they are allowed access outside. These labels have garnered immense interest within health-conscious circles, and are essential to food advertisers. This is because eggs labeled cage-free or free range are able to sell for $2-3 more in stores than regular eggs. With all of the hype surrounding cage free and free range eggs, there has been extensive research done to analyze the nutrition content of them; and there is no proven evidence that suggests that those eggs have any more nutrition content than conventionally grown eggs. Also, while the term “free range” is recognized by the USDA, “cage-free” is a commercial conception and has no association with the USDA. If you are want to buy the most nutritious eggs on the market, the main labels you should look for are omega-3 eggs and USDA organic eggs. Hormone-Free Alongside the cage-free label, arguably the most ambiguous of the food labels listed above is the term hormone-free. The term refers to any pork, red meat, or poultry products that have not been administered any type of hormones (USDA, 2011). Food companies use this label as way to market more humanely raised products. However, according to the USDA, the administration of hormones are not allowed in the raising of hogs or poultry (USDA, 2011). Subsequently the phrase “no-hormones added” can only be used in those products if it also states “federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.” In essence, unless the label is referring to red meat, it is considered meaningless. However, eating red meat that has been administered hormones will have a negative impact on your health. Some of these impacts include early puberty in girls and an increase in prostate and breast cancers in men and women. To be safe, it is a good idea to buy organic when purchasing red meat whenever possible. In looking at the bigger implications of misleading food labeling, it is problematic not only because it deludes consumers, but it also has a negative impact on the environment. Food labeling carries a large influence in the purchasing habits of consumers, and major food corporations take advantage of that through strategic marketing tactics. However, in looking at the bigger picture, these corporations have an opportunity to make considerable contributions in terms of alleviating environmental issues through the responsible labeling of products. If corporations dedicated their focus on environmental awareness and truthfully educating consumers instead of looking to maximize profits by “greenwashing” consumers into believing their products are eco-friendly and more sustainable, there could be legitimate headway made towards preservation of the planet. References: Food Marketing Institute. (n.d.). Natural and organic food. McCluskey, J., Wahl, T., Li, Q., and Wandschneider, P. (2005). U.S. grass-fed beef: marketing health benefits, Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(3), 1-8. Shirley, R. (1975). Nutritional and physiological effects of nitrates, nitrites, and nitrosamines, Bioscience, 25(12), 789-794. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1297222 United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). Food labeling fact sheet: meat and poultry labeling terms. United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). Food labeling fact sheet: meat and poultry labeling terms. United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Grass fed marketing claim standards. Welch, R. and Mitchell, P. (2000). Food processing: a century of change, British Medical Bulletin, 56(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/1/1.2.full.pdf Worthington, V. (2001). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 7(2), 161-173. doi: |
Archives
June 2015
Categories
|