GMO's in Whole Foods and Trader Joe's Products

Cows feeding on grain at a CAFO...

If you thought, like me, that shopping at Trader Joe's or Whole Foods was enough to avoid genetically engineered (GE), genetically modified (GM) grains, packaged foods, oils, poultry, beef etc... think again. 

Tonight I stumbled on this article, which explains how the so-called ''natural'', unlabeled foods that Whole Foods and Trader Joe's sell have GMO's in them. If you go to Whole Foods, you can see for yourself. Head to the meat section and ask the butcher about the beef; he will say that it is ''all-natural''. Keep on asking, and you will find that the meat comes from cows that are at first pasture-fed. Then... sent to feed lots, and ''finished'' on a (non-organic) grain diet... that is exactly what the regular meat industry does. Calves grow on pasture, then are sent to CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operations- in other words, ''factory farms''). 

Same deal with chicken: the grains they eat in the feedlots (don't kid yourself, these chickens are not free range by any stretch of the imagination) are not organic. That also brings to mind... Whole Food's ''natural'' cold cuts, ''natural'' breads etc. Have the presence of mind to make sure that what you pick up actually says ''organic'', or at least ''GMO-free'', ''antibiotic/growth-hormone free'', pesticide, fungicide free... After all, it is your money, and your heath that is at stake here. If you want to buy regular stuff, why not go to Walmart in the first place and save yourself some money? Or your ''Whole Paycheck'', as the joke goes...

Frankenfoods in Your "Natural" Foods Store: Whole Foods or Whole Hypocrisy?

• By Ronnie Cummins 
  Organic Consumers Association, April 12, 2011 
  Straight to the Source 

"The reality is that no grocery store in the United States, no matter what size or type of business, can claim they are GE-free. While we have been and will continue to be staunch supporters of non-GE foods, we are not going to mislead our customers with an inaccurate claim... We have advocated for mandatory labeling of GE foods since 1992..."
  ---  Whole Foods Market Internal Company Memo 1/30/2011
"Whole Foods claim they support mandatory labeling of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). Well, where are the labels on the vast array of non-organic foods in their stores that contain genetically engineered soybeans, corn, canola, cottonseed oil, or sugar beets? Where are the labels on their so-called "natural" meat, eggs, or dairy products, reared on GMO grains and animal drugs?"
  ---  Protester in front of a San Francisco Whole Foods Market, April 11, 2011

After two decades of biotech bullying by Monsanto and Food Inc., a grassroots movement of organic consumers and farmers is rising up across the United States. Inspired by the success of their European counterparts in driving genetically engineered crops and foods off the market, not through an EU ban, but through mandatory labeling, several thousand protesters took to the streets on March 26, 2011 in 30 different cities, under the banner of  "Rally for the Right to Know," and "Millions Against Monsanto." 

At the same time, anti-GMO activists have stepped up the pace of grassroots lobbying, successfully pressuring state legislators in at least 14 states to introduce bills calling for mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods. 

Reflecting widespread public concern over the health and environmental hazards of GMOs, recent polls by National Public Radio and MSNBC have found that more than 90% of Americans support mandatory labeling. Mandatory labeling of GMOs, of course, is bitterly opposed by Monsanto and the supermarket lobby, who understand, as a Monsanto executive admitted, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

Angered by the Obama administration's recent controversial approvals of GMO alfalfa, salmon, sugar beets, and corn, and the compromise or surrender of organic industry leaders, including Whole Foods, in agreeing to accept the "co-existence," of GMO and organic crops and foods, organic consumers across the U.S. have decided to take matters into their own hands. 

Spearheaded by the industry watchdog group, the Organic Consumers Association, and powerful alternative health consumer networks such as NaturalNews.com and Mercola.com, millions of health and environmental-minded consumers are starting to demand that the $60 billion "natural" products industry take GMO products off their shelves, or at least clearly label them, so that consumers can seek certified organic and other GMO-free alternatives.

In an interview at the Green Festival in San Francisco on April 9, Alexis Baden-Mayer, OCA Campaign Director, explained the strategy behind the Millions Against Monsanto Truth-in-Labeling Campaign."Over 90% of Americans want GE-tainted foods labeled. Why? So that we can avoid buying these foods.  This is a major reason why millions of us are buying certified organic products, which preclude the use of GE ingredients, as well as toxic chemicals and animal drugs. Since the politicians in Washington apparently prefer to listen to Monsanto rather than their constituents, we need to put our efforts where we currently have the most power, in our local communities, especially at the retail grocery store level, where 50 million of us are regularly buying certified organic and so-called 'natural' foods. 

"What most green consumers don't understand yet, is that most of the so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products (which make up 2/3 of the sales of Whole Foods Market) that we are still buying are GMO-contaminated. Either they contain GMO ingredients like soy, corn, canola, cottonseed oil or sugar beet sweetener, or else the animals have been force-fed fed a steady diet of GMO grains and drugs.

"We need to clean up our act and walk our talk in the green and natural products sector. We need to tell natural food giants like Whole Foods or Trader Joe's that you can't claim to support GMO labeling, and then proceed to sell billions of dollars of unlabeled GMO food in your stores, greenwashed as 'natural.' We're protesting this week in front of Whole Foods Marketand Trader Joe's to make our views on GMOs absolutely clear. Like our banners say: 'GMOs: Don't buy them! Don't sell them! Don't grow them!' Once we drive GMOs out of our organic and natural food stores, or at least force retailers to label them, we will then be able to turn our attention to conventional supermarkets and do the same thing."

"But this means we've got to build a mass movement of Millions Against Monsanto. By World Food Day, October 16, we plan to mobilize a powerful and unprecedented coalition that can pressure, and if necessary boycott, industry leaders such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's..."

Across the U.S. and the world, people are fed up. Moving beyond ineffectual compromise and co-existence with a green-washed business-as-usual and politics-as-usual, more and more of us are drawing lines in the sand. Nuclear power, genetic engineering, dirty coal and other out-of-control technologies have revealed themselves for what they really are: deadly threats to our survival. Monsanto has deservedly become one of the most hated corporations on earth. It's time to drive their evil products out of the marketplace, starting with the green or natural products sector, utilizing the most powerful tools at our disposal, public education, agitation, and Truth-in-Labeling. Get up. Stand up for your rights. Tell Whole Foods Marketand Trader Joe's to stop selling Monsanto's unlabeled genetically modified organisms. Join the Millions Against Monsanto Campaign. http://www.MillionsAgainstMonsanto.org

How to avoid Phthalate exposure for kids.

Phthalates. They pass pretty quickly through adult bodies. Yet, children's bodies absorb, and retain those chemicals which are found pretty much everywhere these days. For more information about Phthalates, visit the Environmental Working Group, or check out ''Slow Death by Rubber Duck'', where you can read about the authors experiments on themselves. Meanwhile, here are a few simple ways to avoid this chemical, or if you will, this endocrine-disruptor plasticizer.

• Hands: when you get up, one of the first things you do in the morning is wash your hands. Look at your bottle/bar of soap. Does it say, as part of the ingredients, ''fragrance"? That is Phthalate, right there. The cosmetic industry is not required to specifically write down ''phthalates'' in its ingredient list, so they opt for ''fragrance''. Now that you know this little fact, you can toss anything that says ''fragrance'' or ''natural fragrance''. Opt for scent or fragrance-free soaps, with as little and simple an ingredient list as possible. I have been using bars of olive oil soap for years now. They are cheap enough, and last a long time. They also rate at Zero (that is correct, 0) on the Cosmetic Database http://www.ewg.org/chemindex/term/480. Zero is what we are aiming for when it comes to toxicity. If you tend to use lotion after you wash your hands, again opt for fragrance-free, and stuff that is made from a vegetable, plant source instead of petrolium. As you have seen from the oil spill in the Gulf, petrolium is just about the last thing you want to put on your skin; it's toxic. Vaseline and Cetaphyl are made with petroleum, just to give 2 easy-found examples.

• Hair: again, fragrance-free is the key word here. Avoid all the colorful stuff made for kids that you find at the supermarket/drug stores. Most of it is just an incredibly toxic chemical concoction full of dyes, sodium laureth sulfates and phthalates. I experimented with a few shampoo bars, but my hair came out looking like straw. So I went back for liquid shampoo and conditioner. They are not as low on the ''toxic scale'', but so keep my hair decent-looking, which is somewhat helpful when performing onstage. I have used Aubrey Organics, as well as ShiKai, for hair. Keep in mind that each different type of shampoo has a different chemistry, not just a different ''scent''. So while one shampoo or soap from the same maker may be totally fine, the other may be more toxic just because of the combination of the ingrediens. A good example is the Olive Oil soap from Kiss My Face that I use; the plain olive oil one is a zero on the list, but the ''olive and honey'' or ''olive and aloe'' ones reach a ''3'' on toxicity. If you are going to style your hair, again beware of the mesmerizing array of toxic hair products out there. Keep it simple. Shop at the health food store, and try to keep it fragrance-free. I recently saw a new shampoo at the hair salon made with nano particles, or nano-technology. Those shampoos are expensive, and are touted as ''healthy'', the next big thing for your hair. Stay away from those. There aren't enough studies done on nano technology to know its effects on humans, and because the particles are so small (hence the name nano), they penetrate the skin much more easily than their non-nano counterpart. Nano silver will penetrate the skin as opposed to regular silver particles. And no one knows yet what those nano particles do once they reach the ground and water.

• Laundry Detergent: The place where we were staying last summer had some regular liquid laudry detergent left over from other guests. I ran out of the one I had bought, so started using the regular one until I could get to the store. That thing smelled so strong, it was scary. I put my clothes on, and all I could smell was that detergent. Even if I used a tiny little bit of it, and my clothes were pretty much still dirty because I used so little soap, I could still smell that detergent. That is ''fragrance'' for you. And where do those colors come from? ''Natural brightwater-blue"??? No need to remind you of how toxic regular, non-biodegradable laundry detergents are on the environment and on ourselves: non-biodegradable says it all. Whenever you can, opt for biodegradable, preferably scent-free and, if you can, in a paper box. Today, it turned out to be the cheapest detergent in the store: Planet powder detergent came simply in paper, with no plastic bag inside- some powder detergents do come in plastic inside the paper, which is annoying, unnecessary and wasteful, really. I skip the softeners altogether.

• Creams: if you are not careful about what you are purchasing for your children, you can easily end up lathering petroleum-based cream all over their bodies, with a good ''natural scent'' to boot. For your kids, buy only the purest, simplest, absolutely scent-free and non-petrolium based products that you can find. It is not hard these days. For ourselves, I guess we can skimp a bit if necessary, but keep it pure for the kids- for their sake. Remember that their bodies are growing, and absorb everything much more easily than us older folks- and that includes their skin... 

• Perfumes etc: I guess this is where you need to decide how much you want to decline ''fragrance'' or not. It is a very personal decision. I went online and found that my favorite perfume was pretty toxic, so even though I loved using it, I threw it out... maybe one day I'll be able to find something of better quality, but with the same great scent? Or maybe I'll forget about it altogether after a while... time will tell.

• Carpet cleaners, household cleaners etc: if it smells strong, stay away from it. The stronger the smell, the more toxic it is. Good rule to remember. Stick to simple stuff like Dr. Bronner's, vinegar, biodegradable soaps, Bon Ami... Simple, old-fashioned, non-smelly stuff. Do not use anything like regular carpet stain-removers, Lysol, Pinesol, bleach and ammonia in the house- ever. Stuff like ''scrubbing bubbles'', and other super-strong cleaners for toilets, bathrooms, tubs and ovens are incredibly toxic. Their fumes are so strong that you can smell them in the cleaning aisle of the supermarket. Stay away from that aisle, and from those cleaners altogether. 

Five things that aren’t going to save the planet

This article was sent to me by a friend. Great tips. 


On tip No. 1... I insist on organic. I do check where the fruit and vegetables come from. I choose local first, then US but not too far from where I am. If it's Mexico, California, Argentina, New Zealand... I skip. It traveled too far, and it is not as fresh. There are great varieties of fruits and vegetables that are grown locally and in harmony with the seasons. By choosing local (and organic), you give yourself the incredible opportunity to eat a fresh, varied, and therefore more interesting (and healthier...) diet. 


By the way... if you are trying to find those precious organic fruits and veggies... you will definitely  need to look further than your local supermarket, where pretty much all you can count on for organic is California bagged spinach, lettuce, carrots... and bananas, apples, kiwis and oranges. In a pinch, that is better than nothing. But your body definitely needs more than just those 3 veggies and 4 fruit varieties to get the nourishment that it needs to stay healthy and happy.


Five things that aren’t going to save the planet

By Lori Bongiorno

Posted Thu Apr 21, 2011 10:12am PDT

Related topics: Events, Tips, Activism

More from The Conscious Consumer blog

(Photo: Getty Images)

Looking for ways to live a more eco-conscious life? It can be overwhelming because there are so many choices we can make. It's hard to know where to start or what will really make a difference.

Here's a list of things you don't have to do to save the planet, either because they ultimately don't have much of an impact or because there are simpler or less expensive actions that are actually better for the environment.

That's not to say that you shouldn't take the actions below, it's just a guide for those of us with limited time or resources who want to get a bigger bang for our buck.   

1. Always buying organic

There's no question that farming without pesticides is good for the planet, but you can make a bigger difference with other food choices. Buying real instead of processed food is better for your health and the planet's. Choose what's in season and local for produce that tastes better, is more nutritious, and doesn't have to travel thousands of miles to reach your table.

If you can afford to buy organic, then spend your money on the fruits and veggies that tend to have the most pesticide residues such as peaches, strawberries, and celery, as well as dairy and meat. You can skip organic versions of onions, avocado, and other produce that's typically light on pesticide residues as well as processed foods.

Instead: Try to reduce food waste. Eat less meat and dairy (cut down on portion sizes or try skipping meat one day a week). The kind of meat you choose is also important. Red meat is harder on the planet than poultry and pork.

2. Unplugging your electronics

It's true that many plugged in electronic devices in our homes use energy even while they are turned off or not being used. It's certainly easy enough to unplug cell phone chargers or the extra TV in a guest room that rarely gets used, but some people find it tedious to unplug computers, printers, cable boxes, and other electronics they use regularly. Or they just plain forget.

Instead: To really save energy at home, try these free and low-cost ways to make a difference (in order from least impact to most): Wash your clothes in cold water and when possible air-dry them. Turn out unneeded lights, use the energy-saving mode on appliances, install a programmable thermostat, seal large air leaks, or add insulation to your attic. 

3. Buying green products

Purchasing a bunch of "eco-friendly" products is not a great way to be supportive of the environment. The best thing you can do is buy less stuff. Resources are used to make, package, ship, and ultimately dispose of all products, green or not.

Instead: When you have to buy new, then it's best to choose products with sustainable attributes if you can. Look for items that are energy efficient, are made of recycled or recyclable materials, or have minimal packaging. Before you go shopping try prolonging the life of what you already own, borrowing or renting something you'll use infrequently, swap what you no longer need, or buy a used product.

4. Switching to cloth diapers

All diapers take a toll on the planet. Cloth diapers are typically made from conventional cotton and require energy, water, and (in many cases) harsh detergents to wash them. Disposable diapers end up clogging landfills and most brands are bleached with chlorine, which is highly polluting.

Instead: There are greener alternatives for each option (organic cotton cloth or non-chlorine disposable), but you should pick what's most convenient for you because one choice is not typically better than the other. Instead, spend your time and money on another issue that will really make a difference, such as the food choices you make, how you get around, or how you use energy at home.

5. Buying a hybrid

You don't need to buy a hybrid to make a difference. When car shopping, choose the most fuel-efficient carin the class of car you need. Some smaller cars rival hybrids when it comes to fuel efficiency and they often have a lower price tag attached.

Instead:  The best thing you can do to help the planet is drive less. Take public transportation when it's available and convenient, or try to carpool or telecommute once a week. Bundle errands when you can. Take good care of the car you already own, and don't let the engine idle. If everyone took these simple steps it would have a measurable impact on global warming emissions.

Environmental journalist Lori Bongiorno shares green-living tips and product reviews with Yahoo! Green's users. Send Lori a question or suggestion for potential use in a future column. Her book, Green Greener Greenest: A Practical Guide to Making Eco-smart Choices a Part of Your Life is available on Yahoo! Shopping and Amazon.com.

USDA moves to let Monsanto perform its own environmental impact studies on GMOs

Still wonder if the FDA is corrupt? Check out this new article by Tom Philpott...

BY TOM PHILPOTT

19 APR 2011 2:16 PM

"Everything looks A-OK. What a surprise!"Last August, Federal Judge Jeffrey White issued a stinging rebuke to the USDA for its process on approving new genetically modified seeds. He ruled that the agency's practice of "deregulating" novel seed varieties without first performing an environmental impact study violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

The target of Judge White's ire was the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets, engineered to withstand doses of the company's own herbicide. White's ruling effectively revoked the approval of Monsanto's novel beet seeds pending an environmental impact study, and cast doubt upon the USDA's notoriously industry-friendly way of regulating GM seeds.

A rigorous environmental impact assessment would not likely be kind to Roundup Ready sugar beets. First, sugar-beet seeds are cultivated mainly in Oregon's Willamette Valley, also an important seed-production area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. The engineered beets could easily cross-pollinate with the other varieties, causing severe damage to a key resource for organic and other non-GMO farmers. Second, Monsanto's already-unregulated Roundup Ready crops -- corn, soy, and cotton -- have unleashed a plague of Roundup-resistant "superweeds," forcing farmers to apply ever-higher doses of Roundup and other weed-killing poisons. Finally, the Roundup herbicide itself is proving much less ecologically benign than advertised, as Tom Laskawy has shown.

How has the Obama USDA responded to Judge White's rebuke? By repeatedly defying it, most recently in February, when the agency moved to allow farmers to plant the engineered seeds even though the impact study has yet to be completed. Its rationale for violating the court order will raise an eyebrow of anyone who read Gary Taubes' recent New York Times Magazine piece teasing out the health hazards of the American sweet tooth: the USDA feared that the GMO sugar beet ban would cause sweetener prices to rise. Thus the USDA places the food industry's right to cheap sweetener for its junk food over the dictates of a federal court.

In early April, the USDA made what I'm reading as a second response to Judge White, this one even more craven. To satisfy the legal system's pesky demand for environmental impact studies of novel GMO crops, the USDA has settled upon a brilliant solution: let the GMO industry conduct its own environmental impact studies, or pay other researchers to. The USDA announced the program in the Federal Register for April 7, 2011 [PDF].

The biotech/agrichemical industry has applauded the new plan. Karen Batra of the Biotechnology Industry Organization told the Oregon-based ag journal Capital Press that the program will likely speed up the registration process for GMO crops and make the USDA's approach less vulnerable to legal challenges like the rebuke from Judge White. Capital Press summed up Batra's assessment of the plan like this: "The pilot program will not only help move crops through the process more quickly, but the added resources will also help the documents hold up in court."

In other words, the industry plans to produce studies that find its novel products environmentally friendly, and fully expects the USDA to accept their assessments. Judge White had ruled that the USDA should be more rigorous in assessing the risks of new GMO crops, yet his decision seems to be having the opposite effect. No doubt the USDA's latest scheme reflects the administration's stated desire to not be too "burdensome" in regulating industry.

Tom Philpott is Grist’s senior food and agriculture writer. You can follow his Twitter feed attwitter.com/tomphilpott.

Water Footprint Calculator

This is very interesting and informative... I was pretty surprised wen I took the quiz...

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/water-footprint-calculator/

Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says

Matt Nager for The New York Times

A sign warns against swimming in a holding lake in Texas, where Fountain Quail Water Management separates and cleans hydrofracking water.

By IAN URBINA

Published: April 16, 2011

WASHINGTON — Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.

The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap into large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in the rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas.

Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used during the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking water.

“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The report, released late Saturday, also faulted companies for at times “injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.”

The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said.

A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute about the report received no reply.

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including 11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the drinking water act.

A 2010 report by Environmental Working Group, a research and advocacy organization, found that benzene levels in other hydrofracking ingredients were as much as 93 times higher than those found in diesel.

The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way out of a well bore — because of above-ground spills, underground failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock — and into nearby sources of drinking water.

These contaminants also remain in the fluid that returns to the surface after a well is hydrofracked. A recent investigation by The New York Times found high levels of contaminants, including benzene and radioactive materials, in wastewater that is being sent to treatment plants not designed to fully treat the waste before it is discharged into rivers. At one plant in Pennsylvania, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency revealed levels of benzene roughly 28 times the federal drinking water standard in wastewater as it was discharged, after treatment, into the Allegheny River in May 2008.

The E.P.A. is conducting a national study on the drinking water risks associated with hydrofracking, but assessing these risks has been made more difficult by companies’ unwillingness to publicly disclose which chemicals and in what concentrations they are used, according to internal e-mails and draft notes of the study plan.

Some companies are moving toward more disclosure, and the industry will soon start a public database of these chemicals. But the Congressional report said that reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, that disclosure will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary, and that there is no way to determine if companies are accurately reporting information for all wells. In Pennsylvania, the lack of disclosure of drilling ingredients has also incited a heated debate among E.P.A. lawyers about the threat and legality of treatment plants accepting the wastewater and discharging it into rivers.