A new study shows that US families consume cancer-linked glyphosate in their food. The good news: going organic rapidly reduces levels.

The post You Have Pesticides in Your Body. But An Organic Diet Can Reduce Them By 70% appeared first on Real Food Media.

by Kendra Klein and Anna Lappé, The Guardian

hen Andreina Febres, a mother of two living in Oakland, California, signed up for a study evaluating whether an organic diet could make a difference in the amount of pesticides found in her body, she didn’t know what researchers would find. But her family, and the three others across the country that participated, would discover that they all had detectable levels of the pesticides being tracked. They would also discover that after only six days on an organic diet, every single person would see significant drops in those pesticides, including several linked to increased risk of autism, cancer, Parkinson’s, infertility, and other significant impacts on health.

“It’s good to see that just after a week there was a dramatic drop,” Febres said after seeing the results. “I would love to get those pesticides out of my body and my family’s bodies.”

This just-published peer-reviewed study helps answer a question many of us ask when deciding whether to reach for the conventional or organic option at the store: does organic really make a difference? The results say yes, a big difference. Choosing organic can protect you from exposure to toxic pesticides.

This study, led by researchers at University of California, Berkeley and Friends of the Earth, and co-authored by one of us, tracked pesticide levels in four families from across the country for two weeks. The first week, the families ate their typical diets of non-organic food; the following week, they ate completely organic. Urine samples taken over the course of the study were tested for pesticides and the chemicals pesticides break down into, called metabolites.

The results? Of the 14 chemicals tested, every single member of every family had detectable levels. After switching to an organic diet, these levels dropped dramatically. Levels across all pesticides dropped by more than half on average. Detectable levels for the pesticide malathion, a probable human carcinogen according to the World Health Organization, decreased a dramatic 95 %.

Malathion was just one of the pesticides found in this study that are part of a group called organophosphates, which have long concerned public health experts because of their impact on children’s developing brains. Created as nerve agents in World War II, organophosphates have been linked to increased rates of autism, learning disabilities, and reduced IQ in children. The organophosphate chlorpyrifos, found in all of the family members, is so worrisome to public health that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) planned to ban it in 2017 – a proposal dropped by the Trump administration. In the wake of inaction from the administration, Hawaii passed the first state-level chlorpyrifos ban in 2018; and Representative Nydia Velázquez introduced a federal bill to ban it.

This brings us back to the case for organic. When you choose organically-grown products, you’re guaranteed they were not grown with chlorpyrifos or the roughly 900 synthetic pesticides allowed in non-organic agriculture. Many of these pesticides are now understood to cause cancer, affect the body’s hormonal systems, disrupt fertility, cause developmental delay for children or Parkinson’s, depression, or Alzheimer’s as we age. This study shows that eating organic can dramatically decrease the pesticides you’re exposed to.

But we know providing people with information about the benefits of choosing organic foods is not enough. Far too many of us don’t have the choice. Today, billions of our tax dollars are subsidizing pesticide-intensive agriculture while organic programs and research are woefully underfunded. This misdirection of public dollars is one of the reasons many people across the country still don’t have access to, or can’t afford, organic food.

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has argued that in a modern, moral, wealthy society, no person should be too poor to live. We believe it follows that in such a society, none of us should be too poor to afford food raised without toxic chemicals and that all of us should be able to support a food chain that protects the health of farmers, farmworkers and communities who are otherwise on the front-lines of pesticide exposure.

As another mother in the study put it: “Health should not be limited to your income, your education, your race, your gender, or your geographic location. I think everyone has the right to clean, organic food.”

Organic for all, is that too radical of an ask?

Header photo by Andres Carreno / Unsplash

The post What the Pesticides in Our Urine Tells Us About Organic Food appeared first on Real Food Media.

Groundbreaking study on organic food and protecting ourselves from pesticides 

The post Organic For All appeared first on Real Food Media.

Filmed at the World Organic Congress of the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements in Istanbul, Turkey. October 2014.

The post Voices of an Organic Planet appeared first on Real Food Media.

Voices of an Organic Planet from Real Food Media on Vimeo.

Can organic farming feed the world?

Ask that question to a chemical industry executive and you’ll hear a resounding, “No!” Ask farmers around the world, who’ve got a grounds eye view of food production, and you’re likely to get a very different answer. That’s just what we did when we traveled to Istanbul, Turkey, for the International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movements (IFOAM) World Organic Congress. Voices of an Organic Planet captures just some of the voices of the more than 1,000 delegates that gather every two years for the IFOAM international convening.

So why don’t more farmers transition to organic? And why isn’t the market for organic food growing even faster? Many farmers are benefitting from organic farming, and consumers are clamoring for organic food, but farmers around the world are finding it difficult to meet the demand for a number of reasons, including: shortages of organic seeds and breeds required for organic production; laws that privatize seeds as intellectual property and criminalize seed saving and sharing; and a lack of funding for research on open-pollinated seeds, varietal development, and traditionally-bred livestock.

Globally less than 1 percent of research dollars for agriculture, public or private, goes into developing and improving organic methods.

Through our conversations with farmers, researchers, and scientists, we heard loud and clear that together we can feed the world—and that supporting inputs, subsidies, and research for organic and agroecological farming is the only path to sustainably feed ourselves in the future.

Read our report from the Congress in Al Jazeera.

After filming Voices of an Organic Planet, we turned to the situation in the country where we live, partnering with the Organic Farming Research Foundation to launch a petition calling on the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help farmers meet this growing demand. Though support for organic farmers grows every year, the USDA still directs only a fraction of its research budget toward open-source seeds and livestock breeds suitable for organic production. We applauded the USDA’s introduction of programs to support organic farmers and urged them to continue to help farmers meet this consumer demand by at least doubling its annual investments toward the development of open-source, publicly-available seeds and breeds suitable for organic production systems. Our petition stressed that organic and conventional farmers need access to the most up-to-date non-patented genetics and breeds capable of thriving in a range of farming regions and called on the USDA to help support this vital research.

The post Voices of an Organic Planet appeared first on Real Food Media.

Our Spinning Food series, developed in partnership with Friends of the Earth and US Right to Know Network, investigates how Big Food and agrochemical corporations are deliberately misleading the public—and the media—about industrial agriculture and organic and sustainable food production.

Taking lessons from tobacco industry spin, the food and agrochemical industries are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year on stealth public relations tactics, from engaging “third party allies” to mimic grassroots support to deploying “front groups” that are funded by the same corporations whose interests are at stake. These tactics are being used to push coordinated messages attacking organic food production, defending pesticides, and promoting GMOs—messages that are making their way into the pages of our largest media outlets.

Our 2013 report, Spinning Food: How Food Industry Front groups and Covert Communications are Shaping the Story of Food, detailed how these companies are trying to preserve their market share and advance policy agendas by deploying these tactics and more, including producing advertising disguised as editorial content, attacking scientists and investigators, and using other covert media tactics to influence public opinion and sway policymakers without most people realizing the story is being shaped behind the scenes to promote corporate interests. The report sheds light on how the industrial food and agriculture sector is trying to defuse concerns about the real risks of chemical-intensive industrial agriculture and undermine public confidence in the benefits of organic food and diversified, ecological production systems.

Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide, released in 2022, tells the tale of pesticide industry disinformation, including science denial techniques, attacks on scientists, astroturf strategies, online domination of industry messaging, and other spin tactics. This a multi-year research project is a case study of Monsanto (now owned by Bayer) and its decades-long product-defense campaign of its best-selling weedkiller, Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides. The report exposes how the pesticide industry—just like Big Tobacco and Big Oil—uses obfuscating PR tactics to protect its products despite their planetary and public health harm.

We hope our Spinning Food work helps reporters, policymakers, opinion leaders, and the public bring increased scrutiny to the food industry’s messages and messengers. By revealing key groups and tactics used by industry, we also hope that this work helps generate more balanced and accurate reporting on our food system.

Download Spinning Food: How Food Industry Front groups and Covert Communications are Shaping the Story of Food

Download Merchants of Poison: How Monsanto Sold the World on a Toxic Pesticide

The post Spinning Food appeared first on Real Food Media.

Fifteen years ago, when I was giving my first public speech—in front of 2,000 people no less—I terrifyingly prodded everyone I knew for advice. One friend offered me simple advice that has stuck with me ever since. “Do you feel like you have something important to say?” she asked. I replied a quick “Yes, but…” Before I could continue, she said, that’s all that matters. It doesn’t matter if you’re nervous, or not. Stumble on your words, or not. If you have something you think people need to hear, just remember that.

When I was asked to speak at TEDxBerkeley on the theme “constellate,” I knew I had something I wanted to share. Was dying to share. For years, I’ve been writing and researching food—what we grow and how we grow it and what impact all of that has on our bodies, our planet and the workers and farmers along the food chain.

Over these years, I’ve come to see the power of food to connect us and unite us. I’ve also seen an explosion in activism to bring justice and sustainability into the food system alongside record-setting consumer food trends, from a three-decade decline in soda consumption, to a boom in organic food sales to the growing demand for humane meat (58% of consumers say they seek out humanely raised meat and dairy, by latest count).

But some of the conversation about food action, I felt, was still stuck in a “me-first” framework. Food choices are often presented as just about you. And the choice for organic food—food raised without toxic chemicals or meat and dairy produced without antibiotics or pharmaceuticals—organic food is often seen as a choice you should make for your health. Or, it’s maligned as the choice for the most out-of-touch foodie: people who care more about the temperature of their goat cheese than the homeless person down the street.

I had come to see this food choice differently—as an expression of our collective empathy. For me, the choice for organic food is a choice for farmworkers who shouldn’t have to face toxic chemicals to do their job. It’s for farmers who shouldn’t experience higher rates of Parkinson’s, certain cancers and other illnesses because of the chemicals they use. It’s a choice for communities that shouldn’t have to live in the shadow of chemical manufacturers.

This and more is what I decided I had to share in my TEDx talk, The Empathy of Food. It’s definitely my most personal talk yet.

A few weeks ago, before I took the stage at the cavernous 1,500-seat Zellerbach Hall, I channeled my friend’s advice. I took a deep breath… and took the stage. See my talk here. I’d love to hear what you think!

The post The Empathy of Food at TEDxBerkeley appeared first on Real Food Media.

In her latest column for The Washington Post, “The surprising truth about the ‘food movement‘,” Tamar Haspel argues that the number of people who really care about where their food comes from, how it is grown and its impact on our health and the environment is surprisingly small.

We think she’s wrong. As two people who talk to consumers, farmers and retailers every day about food buying choices, we can tell you that the level of awareness and concern for the food we are eating is higher than it has ever been — and shows in changing attitudes and in changing habits, too.

But don’t take our word for it. Listen to food industry analysts like Scott Mushkin, who said last year: “To me, the biggest change is what’s going on with eating trends in the U.S. It’s stunning how much food patterns have changed.” His firm’s research found that the No. 1 one message of women surveyed was that they want to buy more fresh fruits and vegetables.

Or look at indicators from the marketplace: Flagging profits at Walmart are a sign of the public’s changing attitudes toward food. The company was seen as a mortal threat to traditional food retailers when it entered the market, more than 15 years ago. Today, Walmart finds itself competing poorly with smaller stores offering fresh, local produce and even with other big-box stores, such as Costco, now the nation’s largest seller of organic food.

Meanwhile, sales of regular soda in the United States have declined a jaw-dropping 25 percent in the past two decades. This, despite Coca-Cola’s spending $3.5 billion on advertising in 2014 alone and dispensing millions in charitable donations to woo the public and deflect concern about its most profitable — and least healthful — products.

Those consumption trends are a reflection that Americans increasingly care about where their food comes from, how it is grown and the health and environmental implications of what they feed their families. Let’s be clear: These changes didn’t just happen. The shifts we are talking about are occurring as a result of the concerted work of dedicated advocates, activists and community-based organizations that are changing the marketplace and the food system. They are doing it not just through purchasing decisions but also by holding their elected officials accountable and demanding better food policy at local, state and national levels — all against the backdrop of billions in marketing by the processed-food and fast-food industries.

I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a food movement to us.

Yes, conventionally grown food still makes up the vast majority of what Americans buy on a daily basis. But that doesn’t reflect a lack of demand for organic food; it reflects a lack of supply. We’ve heard personally from the people who run large food companies that one of their biggest challenges is meeting the demand for organic fruits, vegetables, dairy and meat. And this brings up a very important point: The staggering gap between supply and demand reflects the regulations, policies, infrastructure — and even financial markets — that greatly favor conventional agriculture through billions of dollars’ worth of subsidies, generous insurance coverage, extensive research, technical help and even marketing assistance that make it difficult for farmers to transition to organic. The reality is the demand for organic is growing by leaps and bounds, limited only by the ability for supply to match it.

The demand for fresh, local and organic is seen clearly in the popularity of the nation’s farmers markets. Haspel argues that this popularity is waning, citing figures of plateauing sales. But other evidence points to a different story. Data from the USDA’s farmers market manager survey conducted last year found a bump in business: Among the more than 8,400 markets nationwide, 61 percent of those surveyed reported increased traffic; more than half reported increases in year-on-year sales. Because the USDA survey she looked at is done only once every five years, Haspel’s data was from 2007 to 2012, which, as you might remember, coincided with the country’s crippling recession, when the number of Americans struggling with hunger shot up by 12.8 million and consumers stopped spending. Sales of lots of things — homes, cars, refrigerators, even food — felt the effects of the economic downturn.

The change in the kind of food we buy isn’t happening just at grocery stores and farmers markets. Between 2006 and 2012, for example, there was a 430 percent increase in farm-to-school programs, reaching more than 4,000 school districts across the country with locally sourced food in school meals. The number of regional food hubs that connect farmers with wholesale, retail, institutional and individual buyers also grew by almost 300 percent during that time. That kind of growth doesn’t just happen. It takes organized, committed parents, teachers, food-service directors and administrators. It takes city planners, business, farmers, restaurateurs and retailers coming together.

These changing attitudes toward food are reflected in public opinion. A poll conducted last fall by bipartisan team Lake Research Partners and Bellwether Strategies for the Plate of the Union campaign found that voters are overwhelmingly concerned that not all Americans have access to healthful, affordable food and want to see policymakers take bold action to remedy it.

The food movement we are part of is a movement made up of farmers and farmworkers, of teachers and public health officials, of policymakers and chefs, and of everyday Americans from all walks of life. Despite what opinion writers such as Haspel say, they care about labeling genetically modified organisms (GMOs), farmworker rights and the effects of chemicals used to grow their food.

Big change never comes easily, and it never happens quickly. Along the way there will always be those who doubt it’s happening at all. But we can see it happening across the country — in grocery stores, in school cafeterias, on family farms. And even in the halls of Congress.

Chellie Pingree is an organic farmer and a member of the House of Representatives (D) from Maine. Anna Lappé is a national bestselling author, co-founder of the Small Planet Institute and director of Real Food Media.

Originally published in The Washington Post

Photo by Melina Mara/The Washington Post

The post The Food Movement is Small? Not From Where We Sit, It Isn’t appeared first on Real Food Media.