Senate Food Labeling Vote Is Suppression of Consumers’ Voting Rights

by
A class photo of the 110th United States Senate.

A class photo of the 110th United States Senate. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The recent Senate rejection of an amendment to the Farm Bill, which would permit states to require labeling of GMOs in food and beverages clearly represents a suppression of consumers’ right to vote.  A vote is defined as a “formal expression of a wish or will”.  Therefore, when we purchase food and beverages, our selection is in essence a vote.  The selection of food and beverages should be a willful choice; however, the withholding of information on food and beverage ingredients suppresses the consumers’ right to make informed choices.

During a debate on this amendment, which includes “generous support for crops like corn and soybeans that are often genetically modified“, senators from farm states overwhelmingly opposed the food labeling amendment.  They feel that the issue of labeling should be left to the federal government.  Also, they voiced concern that food labeling would result in increased costs of food.  The supporters of the food labeling amendment state that a major problem with GMOs is that “the modified seeds “are floating from field to field, contaminating pure crops”. [1]

Upon analysis of the motives of the proponents and opponents of this amendment, is understandable that each side is backed by private interest groups, with the giant seed companies pushing against the amendment and the organic food companies lobbying to pass the food labeling amendment.  It is disturbing, however, that the FDA and USDA have adopted the position that “the engineered foods they have approved are safe– so safe, they do not even need to be labeled as such– and cannot be significantly distinguished from conventional
varieties.[1]  This position is a direct attack on consumers’ right to know and its right to “vote” in the marketplace by making informed choices on food and beverage selections.  Clearly, the Senate is overstepping its boundaries.

As consumers, we have to protect our rights, particularly those that involve our very personal choices, i.e., food purchases.  It is amazing that Congress is spending such an inordinate amount of time and effort to ensure that the American public has access to every detail of the Benghazi attack, the IRS‘ attack on the Tea Party or detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo, while working to deny us access to information that affects our health, survival and “right to vote”.  I imagine that most readers would agree that the ingredients in the food that we feed our families trumps the details of the Benghazi attack.

Now more than ever we have to be extremely careful of protecting our voting rights, starting with the election of “public servants“.  We need individuals in Congress who represent us and who trust us to be able to make informed choices, not those who would willfully suppress our right to information.  The green movement needs your voice now.  Let’s fight to protect our right to choose our food based on complete and accurate information on ingredients.  To do so is to live green, be green.

__________________

Sources for this article:

[1]  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/23/senate-gm-food-labeling-farm-bill.
[2] http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-calls-corporate-controlled-senate-rejecting-gmo-labels.html

Green Movement and Tea Party– Monsanto Protection Act Breeds Strange Bedfellows

by

The ever-growing movement to repeal the very controversial Monsanto Protection Act has garnered the support of both the Tea Party and the green movement, thereby breeding strange bedfellows.  The Monsanto Protection Act “allows Monsanto and other companies to continue selling genetically engineered seeds, even if a court has blocked them from doing so”. [1]  In recent months, federal courts have ruled against the Department of Agriculture, who approved the sale of genetically engineered seeds, stating that the agency acted hastily in their approval, without giving careful consideration to the seeds’ “potential harm“.  In response to these rulings, the seed industry lobby fought back and was successful in attaching the Monsanto Protection Act as a resolution to the spending bill signed into law in March.  Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) took note of the rider and spoke out against it on the Senate floor.  Unfortunately, his voice fell on a typically empty floor, resulting in Tester’s failure to garner enough votes to block the passage of the rider.  This bill then was signed by President Obama as a part of the massive spending bill.

Now we see true activism at work.  Many conservatives, namely the Tea Party, are voicing opposition to the Monsanto Protection Act, particularly on the underhanded way this resolution was passed.  Of course, proponents of the green movement are opposed to the Monsanto Protection Act based on environmental and health concerns. [2]  While the reasons for opposition of the Monsanto Protection Act may vary in that the Tea Party opposes “the special interest loophole for friends of Congress” [3], and the green movement opposes GMOs [2], the opposition itself reflects a coalition unencumbered by politics.  The goal here is a unified one:  namely to repeal the Monsanto Protection Act.

Such activism is refreshing in this current toxic and partisan political atmosphere, which typically results in gridlock and ineffective action or inaction.  We now see the potential power of the people at work.  The Monsanto Protection Act is a bad deal on so many fronts.  We need a united stand to repeal this act.  We here at LGBG urge our readers to contact your senator (see list below) [4] and voice your opposition to the Monsanto Protection Act.  To do so is to live green, be green.

putt_HR933_behind_us_now_jpg_267x155_q85

Sources for this article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/02/monsanto-protection-act-tea-party-partiots_n_3000073.html.
2.  http://livegreenbegreen.com/2013/04/25/the-power-of-seeds-the-main-ingredient-to-sustain-life/.
3.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/16/jeff-merkley-monsanto-repeal_n_3288209.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green.
4.  http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Edible Insects– Proposed Solution To Food Insecurity

by
Percentage of national population suffering fr...

Percentage of national population suffering from malnutrition, according to United Nations statistics. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A new book by the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), Edible Insects, proposes the consideration of insects, particularly beetles, wasps and caterpillars as a source of nutrition to address problems of food insecurity.  The FAO notes that many insects, including worms, grasshoppers and cicadas are high in “protein, fat and mineral content” and can be eaten whole or ground into a powder or paste, and incorporated into other foods. [1]  In many countries, insects are considered delicacies, principally because of their nutritious value.

It seems reasonable that insect farming could become a very relevant industry for human and animal feeding in this time in which we are confronted with  overwhelming problems of global population explosions and urbanization.  We struggle to find adequate solutions to an ever-increasing demand for food and the persistent  negative environmental impact created by its production and delivery.  The challenges arising from livestock production in terms of land and water pollution and over-grazing, along with its adverse effect on climate change due to increased carbon footprint, is well documented, as is the adverse impact of crop production, including, but not limited to, the introduction of harmful pesticides into the air, soil and water and industrial agricultural, which leads to loss of genetic diversity and extinction of some plant species.  The opportunity to explore insect farming as a possible solution to food insecurity is exciting and should not be ignored.

A key factor to successfully introduce edible insects as an integral component of the food supply would involve addressing the perception of insects in western cultures.  To date, insects are considered “disgusting” despite the acknowledgement that as environmentalists, we should feel a kinship to all creatures.  We find that there are so many insects that we would rather do without.  Also, although it is generally known that in the process of industrial food production, it is impossible to totally alleviate bug parts from the food that we eat, citizens in western cultures have not accepted the idea of eating whole insects. [2]

Interestingly, the subject of edible insects is being raised at the same time as the 17-year cicada is making its clamorous ascent to the east coast.  As these insects bore their way to the earth’s surface, excitement and curiosity about them abound.  Discussions include their nutritional value.  Local newspapers carry articles about them,including recipes.  They have been dubbed “the shrimp of the land“.

It is inevitable that we find long-term and ethical solutions to food insecurity, and the consideration of edible insects definitely deserves our attention.  With the concomitant ascent of the 17-year cicada, we have a unique opportunity to try entomophagy (name given to insect eating) and to test the possibility of utilizing insects as a dietary staple.  As a plus, cicadas are natural, unlike GMOs, and they are in abundance. [3]

We here at LGBG invite you, our readers, to send us feedback about your experiences with cicadas, including comments, pictures and even recipes.  We will post as many as we can.  As always, live green, be green!

___________________

Sources for this article:

1.  http://allafrica.com/stories/201305141429.html
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/02/bugs-in-food_n_1467694.html
3.  http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Cicadas-The-Shrimp-of-The-Land-206945321.html

 

Supreme Court’s Monsanto Decision Ignores Germane Issue

by
U.S. Supreme Court building.

U.S. Supreme Court building. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling that by growing beans without purchasing new seeds, an Indiana farmer violated Monsanto’s patent on soybean seeds totally addresses the issue of patent rights, but ignores the germane issue– the right of a corporation to monopolize the seed industry.  In response to this ruling, Monsanto’s top lawyer, David F. Snively, stated, “[t]his court ruling ensures that the longstanding principles of patent law apply to breakthrough 21st century technologies that are central to meeting the growing demands of our planet and its people”.

 

While this decision may be correct on the subject of patent rights, it truly flies in the face of the green movement and sustainability.  To allow a corporation to advance technologies that eliminate crop diversity with the creation of a few homogenous crops (soy, potatoes, corn and wheat), supposedly to address the problem of world hunger, is a very dangerous practice.  Monsanto, along with other large corporations, have endorsed practices that have included taking over many seed companies and reducing farmers from positions of independent owners to “renters” of their products.  These industrial agricultural practices have resulted in the loss of biodiversity and the extinction of more than 80,000 plant varieties.

 

While Monsanto speaks of advancing seed technology, it must be recognized that the company is sewing seeds of deception.  The company’s sense of victory from this Supreme Court decision carries a caveat that while it may be a victory on patent rights, it is not the final word on acceptable agricultural practices.  We do not have to invest in Monsanto or purchase any products in which Monsanto is invested.  The bottom line is that farmers will not grow what consumers refuse to buy.  The choice is ours, and with research, consumer education and activism, consumers can restrict their investments and purchases to products from businesses who do not set out to manipulate and control our food supply.

 

Monsanto may be able to dupe climate change deniers and even the Supreme Court, but the proponents of the green movement, the true stewards of this planet, will not be duped!  As always, let’s live green, be green.

 

___________________

 

Sources for this article:

 

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/13/supreme-court-monsanto_n_3266319.html.
2.  http://livegreenbegreen.com/2013/04/25/the-power-of-seeds-the-main-ingredient-to-sustain-life/

 

Honeybee Shortage– An Impending Economic Disaster

by
English: Placing honeybees for pumpkin pollina...

English: Placing honeybees for pumpkin pollination, Mohawk Valley, NY (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The steadily increasing disappearance of honeybees since 2006 has farmers, beekeepers, scientists and government officials all abuzz, largely because of the impending economic disaster that would occur without bee pollination.  This really is a major problem because “one-third of all food and beverages are made possible by pollination, mainly by honeybees.  The agricultural industry attributes more than $20 billion of its worth to pollination.[1]

Currently, the USDA, scientists, beekeepers and growers are working frantically to identify the cause of death of bees or “colony collapse disorder” (CCD).  It appears that there are several factors contributing to this problem, including the parasitic Varroa mite and pesticides.  Researchers are very familiar with the Varroa mites, noting that they attach themselves to bees and feed off of their fluids, thereby weakening them.  A potential solution posed for the mite problem is to breed bees that can withstand these mites.  Recent research also has pointed to the adverse effects of neonicotinoids, a pesticide that has few adverse effects on mammals, but are shown to damage the brains of bees.  Additional causes of CCD listed by the EPA and the USDA include “poor nutrition, reduced genetic diversity, the Nosema gut parasite, emerging viruses and a bacterial disease called European foulbrood“.[1]

It is interesting to examine the potential impact of the loss of honeybee pollination on our food supply.  It it important to note the special and unique role of some pollinators in seed production, but not in the growth of the germinated seeds.  The loss of these pollinators would trigger the disappearance of these seed, the very origin of these plant species.  Some examples include carrots,onions, celery, mustard, broccoli, cauliflower, cabbage, Brussel sprouts, turnips, caraway, coriander, buckwheat, fennel, alfalfa, sesame and several variety of beans.  Many of the fruits and vegetables that we eat require honeybee pollination and would be adversely affected by the loss of pollinators, resulting in increase cost due to shortages or even total lack of available crops.  Imagine no strawberries, peppers (several varieties), apples, kiwifruit, watermelon, cantaloupes or squash, just to name a few. [2]

Now that we recognize the need to reduce our consumption of red meat and to increase the use of fresh fruits and vegetables in our diets for purposes of healthier lifestyles and environmental protection, it is a matter or urgency to address this threat to our food supply.  We all can do something to help.  For starters, we have to educate ourselves on the process of pollination.  An excellent resource on this subject is the Pollinator Partnership at www.pollinator.org/html.  This site has wonderful suggestions on planting fruits, vegetables and flowering plants that attract pollinators.  Also, you can find information to get involved in the celebration of Pollinator Week 2013 coming up in June. [3] Secondly, keep in mind will not try to sell products that we refuse to buy.  To that end, please make every effort to buy local and organic.  These fruits and vegetables do not contain harmful pesticides that harm the soil, the air, water or pollinators, such as honeybees.

The pollination problem is a complex one that has several causes and will take time to solve.  The relationship of honeybees to the earth is simple:  Bees equal food.  With that said, we have a duty to protect the honeybees.  Our lives depend on it.  To do so is to live green, be green.

_________________

Sources for this article:

[1]  http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/02/18021285-pesticides-arent-the-biggest-factor-in-honeybee-die-off-epa-and-usda-say?lite
[2]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_crop_plants_pollinated_by_bees.
[3]  http://www.pollinator.org/

Time To Consider Market-based Solution To Freshwater Shortage

by
Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/water...

Water cycle http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleprint.html Other language versions: Català Czech español Finnish Greek Japanese Norwegian (bokmål) Portugese Romanian עברית Diné bizaad (Navajo) and no text and guess water vapor (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The world’s ever-increasing population and overwhelming demand on the freshwater supply, combined with the adverse effects of climate change, has triggered a new and urgent focus on the issue of water security and the need to address looming threats to water shortages globally, and now includes conversations on market-based solutions to this problem.   Some readers may find it difficult to appreciate the reality of a water shortage given that 70 percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water; however, the facts are that (1) the majority of that 70 percent is saltwater and (2) clean freshwater for consumption, agriculture and other human activities is in short supply.

In the United States alone, the total use of water for agriculture, industrial and personal use is greater than the entire amount of water that flows in the country’s rivers.  The net amount required to meet the demand is pulled from ground water beneath the earth’s surface, thus creating a shortage there.  Consequently, our extreme demand on the water supply has led to a “new geologic era” in which “humanity has taken over key [planetary] drivers:  the water cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle”.  [1]  One proposed solution to the water shortage is the adoption of a market-based system that privatizes freshwater services and allocates a price for its use.  Under such a scenario, water quantity and quality would be traded as goods with the potential that water would become the “biggest commodity of the 21st century”. [1]

The greatest benefit derived here is that a market-based system would provide a strong incentive to conserve water.  Everyone would pay for what they use as priced on the open market.  This would then focus more attention on water quality.  The removal of water services from state, county and municipal control and placement in the competitive market also would encourage more efficient use of water.  Ultimately, with the creation of investment opportunities, private companies would be better able to fund research and development on sustainable practices and to build and maintain the necessary filtration, clarification and delivery systems without political and budget constraints inherent under public control.  On the flip side of such a proposal, privatized water could negatively impact poor communities, possibly leading to health catastrophes as people unable to afford water would use rivers, streams, ponds and lakes, which often are contaminated and pose health risks.  As such, any solutions that privatize freshwater delivery would have to include a component that provides affordable access to the water supply for basic consumption and hygiene to those unable to purchase service.  Interestingly, studies do show that people tend to find a way to purchase things they deem important.  As an example, statistics indicate that  in India, more people have access to cellphones “than to basic sanitation“, i.e., toilets. [1]

The privatization of water could be a boost to the green movement simply by the change in attitude with the realization that its use comes with a premium price tag.  Individuals would be more receptive to reduce their reliance on water in the home by carefully planning lawns and landscaping.  Hopefully, they would use more grasses and plants that are drought resistant.  Also, as the cost of water to feed farm animals is passed on to consumers, it is likely that people will entertain the notion of reducing their meat consumption to some extent.  Lastly, farmers hopefully will be more inclined to shift from flood irrigation of crops to drip irrigation, thereby reducing their agricultural water consumption by about 20%.

The reality here is that fresh water shortages are a major concern, particularly here in the United States where the availability of freshwater largely has been taken for granted.  A recent report by the U.S. Drought Monitor notes seven states, namely Oklahoma, Wyoming, South Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas and Nebraska are in the throes of severe drought. [2]  Clearly, this is an issue that deserves immediate attention simply because we cannot exist without fresh water.  Privatization of the management and delivery of freshwater through a market-based system is a possible albeit extreme solution and definitely merits discussion.  To save our freshwater is to save our lives.  To do this, let’s live green, be green.

_______________

Sources for this article:

1.  http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/03/29/can-the-world-afford-cheap-water/.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/30/states-running-out-of-water_n_2984979.html.

"WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE" -...

“WATER WASTE MEANS WATER SHORTAGE” – NARA – 516053 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Consumers’ Rights Concerns Weakened by Right To Know Laws

by
Hollywood, FL, March 26, 2011, Rally for the R...

Hollywood, FL, March 26, 2011, Rally for the Right to Know (Photo credit: MillionsAgainstMonsanto)

In reviewing the many battles raging on the food we eat and products we use, it appears that the right to know laws [1] are the sticking points in these controversies.  The current right to know laws are weak and effective in terms of addressing food and product ingredients. [2]   While the majority of consumers presume that consumer protection laws are designed to guard individual rights, the reality is that the purpose of most consumer protection laws is to promote the well-being of the population.  This renders their focus to social concerns, as opposed to legal protection.  This often is in direct conflict with the green movement, which acknowledges the damages to the environment by human action and proposes changes in past behaviors to alter the course of destruction.  The green movement seeks to adopt long-term effective solutions to problems of global warming and climate change and their impact on people and specifically on the food supply, while many other concerns seek immediate and often questionable solutions to problems such as world hunger.

This issue clearly can be seen in the debate over genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  In an effort to ensure an adequate food supply, large companies, such as Monsanto and DuPont, design seeds that are resistant to drought, disease and other adverse weather conditions that lead to soil erosion and depletion of nutrients.  The general perception is that research on these projects is undertaken with such a sense of urgency that caution generally is  thrown to the wind, and the quality of food and potentially harmful effects of GMOs have been considered less important than the quantity of food produced.  The consumers’ right to know the hazards of GMOs has been ignored largely through the refusal to even note on packaging that products contain genetically modified ingredients.  The outcry of environmentalists and supporters of the green movement is often criticized, based on the notion that GMOs represent the quickest solution to address the issue of crop failures and the resulting threat to the food supply.  The alternative of organic farming is considered  too costly, unpredictable and incapable of producing enough food to feed large populations.

A second area of concern over the ingredients in food can be found in numerous articles on the Internet denoting the “horrible” ingredients contained in food products.  The bad contents in food run the gamut from insect parts to carcinogens and unlisted animal byproducts.  Many of these ingredients are harmful to the body while others simply represent a violation of choices we are free to make, i.e., vegans and vegetarians have the right to not eat animal byproducts.  Refusal to label the contents of food ingredients violates the public’s right to know the contents of these foods.

The course of action needed to address the issue of labeling is twofold–legal and economic.  The legal solution is to revise the consumers’ right to know the contents contained in food.  Currently, food labeling laws address nutritional content, particularly in terms of calories, fat, cholesterol and other substances, such as sodium and percent of daily requirement of certain predetermined nutrients and vitamins.  The law in this regard desperately needs to be expanded to include other ingredients, which are unproven as to their safety, such as GMOs, or those that may be distasteful to certain people or deemed not in accordance with certain lifestyles.  This really is no different from stating that products contain ingredients that are known allergens, such as milk or peanuts.  The second course of action involves consumers using their buying power to speak for them.  This process starts with each of us educating ourselves on the reputable businesses that insist on selling products that label ingredients.  While these products may be more expensive now, that will change when they become the norm, rather than the exception.

Browsing the Web is a good place to start to learn about unacceptable ingredients in food.   Whole Foods has a great site with a list of unacceptable foods. [3]  Also, contact your legislators and voice your concern over the issue of food labeling and its importance to your family’s health.  We have to fight for our right to know the ingredients in our food and other products of daily living.  To do so is to live green, be green.

_________________

1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_know
2.  http://businessethicsblog.com/2010/10/01/consumers-right-to-information/
3.  http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/quality-standards/unacceptable-ingredients-food

Looking To Pope Francis To End Factory Farming

by
Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm

Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm (Photo credit: Socially Responsible Agricultural Project)

 

The Vatican’s election of Pope Francis hopefully will signal an era of increased awareness and activism that will culminate in the end of factory farming.  Taking the name of Francis, after St.Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and the environment, the new pope has set the stage for his agenda, which features compassion for animals and a commitment to the poor.

 

This attention to the plight of animals is needed desperately in light of the cruel practices of factory farming, whereby animals raised for food are crammed together in close quarters, barely able to move.  Chickens and turkeys raised for market spend their entire lives on beds of excrement, while pigs, cattle and calves are raised on slatted floors, which permit their feces to drop below into manure pits.  These environments are toxic, with the resulting ammonia fumes from the animals’ waste circulating the enclosed environment, weakening their immune systems and burning their respiratory tracts.  Also, penning animals in close quarters results in fighting with pecking and biting, causing injuries, sores and infections. This whole scenario is indicative of the extreme cruelty to animals and deserves the attention of the world and the passage of laws to end these practices.

 

Additionally, the practice of factory farming, with its inherent contaminated and toxic environment, poses an ever-present threat of disease, necessitating the routine use of antibiotics to treat animals.  This is particularly alarming at a time when there is a major concern about the overuse of antibiotics by humans, which is suspected to lead to antibiotic resistance and the development of mutant virulent strains of bacteria and viruses.  Permitting the commercial marketing of meat products laced with antibiotics for human consumption is hazardous to human health and should not be outlawed.

 

Pope Francis also has voiced his commitment to the poor and the Church’s need to address the issue of poverty all over the world.  It is noteworthy that factory farming practices are more likely to impact the poorer segments of the population because these individuals are less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have access or means to meat and poultry raised organically, largely due to cost.  Nutritionally insufficient diets have been identified as a major contributor to poor health, and the ingestion of products of factory farming clearly is a part of this cycle.

 

With this new era in the Catholic Church, social activists, farm animal welfare activists and environmentalists look with optimism to Pope Francis and the Vatican to lend a voice to the need to protect animals and humans by adopting the necessary legal measures to end factory farming.  To do so is to live green, be green.

Sources For Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sue-cross/antibiotic-resistance-veganism_b_2874898.html?utm_hp_ref=health-news&ir=Health%20News.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/pope-says-wants-poor-church_n_2889991.html.
3.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi.

 

Whole Foods Commits To Consumers on GMO Labeling

by
Whole Foods Market

Whole Foods Market (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whole Foods has stepped into the ring in the fight between consumers and the government over food labeling of GMOs.  The company recently announced that by 2018, “all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs)”.

This announcement to require labeling of GMOs speaks loudly to the food industry and the government on industry practices.  A clear message is being sent that people have the right to know the contents of their food they purchase and that a company which markets food as being certified organic has a duty to assure the truth of any such statements to that extent.  Without mandatory labeling, it is impossible for stores such as Whole Foods to guarantee non-GMO products to their customers; however, forging business relationships with companies who are willing to truthfully disclose the contents of food products will go a long way to identify and support worthy businesses.  This is not to say that a product cannot contain GMOs.  Rather, they will not be sold at Whole Foods.  There are some people who do not even read food labels or show concern for such issues, and there still will be places for them to shop.

Recent efforts to require GMO labeling in California was defeated, largely as a result of millions of dollars in advertising against the ballot measure by corporate proponents of GMOs, namely Monsanto and PepsiCo.  It is difficult to understand the controversy over food labeling and the government’s failure to require labeling on foods containing GMOs.  Additionally, it is puzzling that the government opts to block the consumers’ right to know what is contained in the food they purchase.  To this end, Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Yogurt and chairman of the Just Label It campaign noted that “there are . . . lots of reasons to label these foods:  health and environmental concerns, ethical/religious views or just people want to know”.  Statistics on the need to know whether or not foods contain GMOs indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) want food labeling.

The decision by Whole Foods to require labeling foods if they contain GMOs is a major step forward for the green movement and for people who insist on making informed choices on food purchases.    This decision also reinforces the commitment of stores such as Whole Foods to sell food that is organically grown.  This plan offers much-needed support to the suppliers of certified organic products.  It is a clear indication that the proponents of healthy living will not be dominated or defeated by big corporations on the issue of right to know and to choose the food they want to eat.  Hopefully, many more companies will join Whole Foods and manufacturers, such as Stonyfield, in supporting consumers’ right to know whether or not their food contains GMOs.  To do so is to live green, be green.

 

Source for this article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?utm_hp_ref=green.
2.  http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/product-faq/gmos.
3.  http://justlabelit.org/.

Show You Care With Green Valentine Gifts

by
Happy Valentine's Day...

Happy Valentine’s Day… (Photo credit: Јerry)

Valentine’s Day is just around the corner, and we here at LGBG wanted to offer a few suggestions for green Valentine’s Day celebrations that show how much you really care.  With a little imagination, you can plan a celebration that is romantic, affordable and more exciting than that usual annual Hallmark moment, complete with a card, cut flowers and large crowds and long lines at restaurants that are anything but intimate.

For starters, a written expression of love is a must.  It does not have to be a store-bought card.  It could be a letter, a poem or a list of all the things you love about the person receiving the gift.  It could be a handwritten IOU for a special event upcoming in the future.  Your special person definitely will appreciate the personal touch, thoughtfulness and creativity.  If you must give a store-bought card, make sure it is made from environmentally friendly recycled paper.

Flowers are perhaps the gift given most often on Valentine’s Day.  This year, break out of the box and try something different.  Rather giving “toxic” cut flowers that will die in a few days, choose a potted plant that will continue to grow for a long time (if cared for properly).  A perusal of websites on environmentally friendly plants reveals a lot of suggestions.  One of my favorite sites is:  http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/07/top-10-natural-eco-friendly-and-anti-pollutant-houseplants/.  There you can find beautiful and often colorful houseplants that also are eco-friendly and anti-pollutant.  This gift could mark the start of a special activity in your relationship that fosters intimacy.  It also is a great gift for children, creating a learning opportunity on caring about nature.

Next, who doesn’t like chocolate, particularly on Valentine’s Day?  This year, try organic chocolate.  This is a great time to shop from fair trade vendors, who guarantee their products are organic and were made by workers who were treated fairly. Organic chocolate is made from cocoa beans that have not been treated with fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides.  Additionally, the other ingredients in the mix also are grown by organic methods– sugar, nuts, spices, etc.  Domestic organic chocolate are clearly labeled as such with a USDA Organic seal and with an organic percentage of 70% to 98%.  To earn this seal, this product must be free of preservatives, artificial color and GMOs.  Organic chocolate is more expensive than conventional chocolate, but the quality shows that you care.

If jewelry is on your list this year, consider antique jewelry or something retro that has very special meaning.  This presents another great opportunity to shop from fair trade vendors.

To cap off that romantic Valentine’s Day celebration, celebrate with organic wine.  Organic wine is made from grown with 100% organic ingredients that have been monitored closely throughout the growing process.  Domestic organic wines carry a USDA seal.  A great website with brands of organic wines is: http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/latest/best-organic-wines#slide-1.  Also, when I visited my local spirits shop, the salesperson was eager to “educate” me on organic wine, and I left the store with a great bottle of reasonably priced vino.

We hope you find something interesting to try in  these suggestions for a green Valentine’s Day.  Every little step towards a greener lifestyle helps to reduce our carbon footprint.  Use the opportunity of this upcoming Valentine’s Day to celebrate love, life, the earth and to live green, be green.