JAMBAR Organic Artisan Energy Bars Now Available in Select California and Hawaii Whole Foods Market Stores

In keeping with Whole Foods Market’s mission of giving back to the community, JAMBAR donates 50% of after-tax profits to local music and active-living organizations

SAN RAFAEL, Calif. (June 19, 2024) – JAMBAR®, the artisan-made organic energy bar company launched in 2021 by PowerBar® co-founder Jennifer Maxwell, continues to expand its nationwide retail footprint. JAMBARs will now be carried in select Whole Foods Market stores in Northern California, Southern California and Hawaii.

“JAMBAR is excited to be a part of the Whole Foods Market family. These organic energy bars not only meet Whole Foods Market’s high-quality standards, but they’re also delicious,” said JAMBAR founder and CEO Jennifer Maxwell. “Our company’s dedication to organic food and farming, along with its commitment to giving back, makes JAMBAR a natural addition to Whole Foods Market shelves,” she added.

Maxwell and her late husband, Brian, essentially created the energy bar category when they launched the original PowerBar in 1985. More than three decades later, Maxwell had a new vision. She put the KitchenAid mixer she used for the first PowerBars back to work, blending the highest-quality, most innovative organic ingredients into a new type of whole food energy bar.

The result is JAMBAR. Whole Foods Market will offer four flavors of JAMBAR – Malt Nut Melody, Musical Mango, Chocolate Cha Cha and Jammin’ Jazzleberry. JAMBARs are made with organic, gluten-free ancient grains, berries, fruit, nuts, fair-trade chocolate, proteins from sunflowers and organic dairy, and pure syrup, juices and honey as sweeteners. The Musical Mango and Jammin’ Jazzleberry varieties are 100% vegan and suitable for plant-based diets. All JAMBARs contain 10g of premium quality protein.

JAMBARs are made in the U.S. and crafted in small batches in the company’s own state-of-the-art manufacturing facility in Northern California. A woman-owned business and a mission-based “conscious CPG brand,” JAMBAR donates 50% of after-tax profits to organizations that support music and active living. Runner’s World named JAMBAR the Best Protein Bar for runners in 2022 and also recognized JAMBAR with its 2023 Fitness Nutrition Award.

JAMBAR is distributed by leading natural and specialty foods distributors, including UNFI and KEHE. For wholesale inquiries, contact jammin@jambar.com, 877-JAMBARZ.

About JAMBAR
In 2021, Jennifer Maxwell founded JAMBAR with the goal of helping people feel good not only about the ingredients they put in their bodies, but also about the positive impact they can have on their local communities. A mission-based brand, JAMBAR donates 50% of after-tax profits to organizations that support music and active living. Runner’s World named JAMBAR the Best Protein Bar for runners in 2022 and also recognized JAMBAR with its 2023 Fitness Nutrition Award.

Learn more at www.jambar.com and follow JAMBAR on Facebook and Instagram.

Media Contact
Steven Hoffman, Compass Natural, steve@compassnatural.com, tel: 303.807.1042

GMO Labeling Fight Goes to Washington

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Alarmed that pro-GMO labeling advocates may be gaining ground, opponents of GMO labeling took their money and influence to Washington, DC, in December to try to outlaw states from passing GMO labeling bills, and allow manufacturers to call their GMO products “natural.”H.R. 4432, called the Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2014 by bill sponsor Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), and backed by corporate agribusiness and mainstream food industry interests, seeks to prohibit states from exercising their right to label GMOs. Further, the bill would allow manufacturers to call GMO foods “natural.” Additionally, Pompeo's legislation, if passed, would create a “voluntary” labeling system over mandatory labeling, and would nullify GMO labeling laws already passed by Maine, Vermont and Connecticut.

While many in the food industry favor uniform national GMO labeling legislation over a patchwork of state laws, Pompeo’s bill, dubbed the DARK Act, or the “Deny Americans the Right to Know Act,” by opponents of the bill, seeks to take the teeth out of GMO labeling. Backers of H.R. 4432 hope to do away with mandatory labeling, while codifying FDA's voluntary labeling system. Currently, FDA does not require labeling for genetically modified foods. However, voluntary labeling has been in place since the mid-1990s, and yet few
to no companies have ever voluntarily labeled their products as containing GMOs.

On December 10, the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s health panel held a hearing in Washington, DC, entitled “Examining FDA’s Role in the Regulation of Genetically Modified Ingredients.” Despite a growing body of scientific research pointing to environmental and health risks associated with GMOs, when asked by Congressional panel member George Butterfield (D-NC), “Is there a scintilla of evidence that would suggest that these foods are unsafe?,” FDA official Michael Landa responded, “Not to our knowledge, no.”

Representatives at the hearing were skeptical of the need for GMO labeling, claiming it would confuse consumers or that it was simply “illogical” and “irrational.” Rep. Pompeo claimed that GMO labeling would raise food prices dramatically for consumers.

In testifying at the Congressional hearing, Kate Webb, Assistant Majority Leader in the Vermont House of Representatives, cautioned that H.R. 4432 would ultimately undo the work of Vermont’s recently passed Act 120, the law that requires genetically engineered products sold in Vermont to be labeled as such. Webb was one of the primary sponsors of Act 120, which passed 28-2 in the state Senate and 114-30 in the Vermont House.

“Most people would greatly prefer a national mandatory labeling system and national rules designed to restrict misleading claims of products being ‘natural,’” Webb said at the hearing.

“One of the great strengths of a capitalist democracy is not only do we cast a vote at the polls, we also do so in selecting the products we purchase,” she said. “Transparency allows us to see how things work, be it government, financial institutions or the foods we eat—what is in them, where they come from, and how they are produced. This transparency allows us to make informed decisions, and ultimately build trust.” Webb urged the subcommittee to oppose H.R. 4432 and support the mandatory labeling of genetically engineered products.

Webb and Scott Faber, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group, were the only two witnesses to testify against H.R. 4432. Other witnesses included Michael Landa, Director, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA; Alison Van Eenennaam, PhD, Biotechnology and Genomics Cooperative Extension Specialist, University of California, Davis; Stacey Forshee, Fifth District Director, Kansas Farm Bureau; and Tom Dempsey, President and CEO of the Snack Food Association.

“Poll after poll shows that consumers want the right to know what’s in their food and how it’s produced,” said Scott Faber. “Because our food choices have such a significant impact on our lives, this is a trend that should be welcomed, not frustrated. So it’s disappointing that some members of Congress, led by Rep. Mike Pompeo, are fighting to deny Americans the right to know whether their food contains genetically modified ingredients.”

Regenerative Agriculture a Low-Cost Solution to Climate Change

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Editor's Note: Compass Natural's Director Steven Hoffman will be attending the COP21 Global Climate Summit in Paris in December 2015 on behalf of Regeneration International to promote the power of organic, regenerative agriculture to help feed the world AND cool the planet. Learn more here and on Facebook. What is the cost of preventing global warming? Not that expensive, really, if one considers switching to widely available and inexpensive organic farming practices, reported Rodale Institute in a landmark White Paper published in May 2014.

In fact, said Rodale after conducting more than 30 years of ongoing field research, organic farming practices and improved land management can move agriculture from one of today’s primary sources of global warming and carbon pollution to a potential carbon sink powerful enough to sequester 100% of the world’s current annual CO2 emissions.

Thus, a term coined years ago by organic pioneer Robert Rodale is now newly emerging: Regenerative Agriculture, with the power to "feed the world and cool the planet," say the founders of Regeneration International, a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing organic, regenerative agriculture and land management worldwide as a solution to combat climate change. Rodale’s researchers point to organic farming as a way to reduce energy inputs and minimize agriculture’s impact on global warming, draw down carbon from the atmosphere into healthy, organic soils, and also help farmers better adapt to rising global temperatures and extreme weather.

“Simply put, recent data from farming systems and pasture trials around the globe show that we could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic management practices, which we term ‘regenerative organic agriculture.’ These practices work to maximize carbon fixation while minimizing the loss of that carbon once returned to the soil, reversing the greenhouse effect, said the study’s authors.

Or, as the Wall Street Journal reported in a May 2014 feature article, “Organic practices could counteract the world’s yearly carbon dioxide output while producing the same amount of food as conventional farming…”

It seems like a powerful solution to climate change lies literally right under our feet.

Conventional Agriculture Adds Heat The global food system is estimated to account for one-third or more of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions, says Anna Lappe, author of Diet for a Hot Planet. Much of the fossil fuel used in commercial agriculture comes not only from running tractors and machinery, but also because petroleum is a primary ingredient in synthetic pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers, widely used in conventional agriculture.

While insisting that pesticides and GMOs are the only way to feed a growing population, conventional agriculture and livestock production are today a significant part of the problem, says Rodale, and also are responsible for widespread clearing of forests, grasslands and prairies. Palm oil production alone, with its destruction of the world’s largest rainforest region, is why Indonesia is the world’s third largest greenhouse gas producer.

Also, synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is known to release large amounts of nitrous oxide into the atmosphere, a potent GHG and a primary threat to earth’s ozone layer. Synthetic nitrogen fertilizer also is responsible for the Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico, an oxygen-depleted area the size of New Jersey in which no fish can survive.

Organic A Cool Solution According to Dr. David Pimentel of Cornell University, author of Food, Energy and Society, organic agriculture has been shown to reduce energy inputs by 30%. Organic farming also conserves more water in the soil and reduces erosion. Also, healthy organic soils tie up - or sequester - carbon in the soil, helping to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

“On-farm soil carbon sequestration can potentially sequester all of our current annual global greenhouse gas emissions of roughly 52 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (~52 GtCO2e). Indeed, if sequestration rates attained by exemplar cases were achieved on crop and pastureland across the globe, regenerative agriculture could sequester more than our current annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions,” Rodale concluded.

Farming in a Warmer Future Changes in temperature caused by global warming could have dramatic effects on agriculture. Extreme weather, rising temperatures, drought and flood caused by global warming all could have an adverse impact on yield, disease and insect pests.

Organic farmers may be better able to adapt to climate change, in that healthy organic soils retain moisture better during drought, making it more available to plant roots. Also, organic soils percolate water better during floods, helping to decrease runoff and soil erosion.

According to Rodale Institute’s 30-year field trials, in good weather, yields for organic and conventional corn and soybeans are comparable. However, organic soils are 28-70% higher in production in periods of drought compared to conventional soils. Researchers at the University of Michigan similarly found that while yields are comparable in developed countries, organic farms in developing countries can produce 80% more than conventional farms.

Rodale also found that during flood, there is 25-50% more water infiltration in organic soils, thus preventing runoff and erosion. Carbon-rich organic soils act as a sponge: for every pound of carbon increased in the soil matter, you can add up to 40 lb. of additional water retention, says Rodale.

For developing nations, organic farming could make a huge difference in adapting to climate change. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, organic farming can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, the FAO found that organic agriculture could build up natural resources, strengthen communities, and improve human capacity, “thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously.”

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition reported, “Sustainable and organic agricultural systems offer the most resilience for agricultural production in the face of the extreme precipitation, prolonged droughts and increasingly uncertain regional climate regimes expected with rapid global warming.”

Resources:

Regeneration International

Carbon Underground

Rodale Institute

Conventional Retailers Take the Lead in Natural/Organic Food Sales

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Sales of natural and organic products grew 9.1% to reach $120 billion in 2014, reports Natural Foods Merchandiser’s 2015 Market Overview, and for the first time, conventional retailers recorded slightly higher sales than the traditional natural products retail channel.

“It could be the year we look back on, and remember as the turning point for when natural became everyday.” - Christine Kapperman, Editor in Chief, Natural Foods Merchandiser

As Editorial Director of the Natural Foods Merchandiser in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, I remember spending a number of late nights working with the magazine’s founder, Doug Greene, pouring over paper surveys to complete the industry’s eagerly awaited annual Market Overview. Things have changed since then, yet the natural and organic products industry continues to gain momentum, posting impressive year-over-year growth, as consumers increasingly demand cleaner, healthier foods.

Everyone is taking notice. Never has the competition been fiercer among traditional natural foods super-naturals, including Whole Foods Market and Sprouts, and expansion-minded chains and independents such as Natural Grocers, Earth Fare, Fresh Thyme Farmers Market, Lucky’s Market, MOM’s Organic Market, Mustard Seed, and others. Just last month, I reported on how major food brands, including Kraft, Chipotle, Pepsi and a growing number of others, are feeling the pinch of lost market share and are now removing artificial ingredients, colorings, preservatives, GMOs and other chemicals from their ingredient decks. Additionally, Kroger’s private label organic brand, Simple Truth, in 2014 surpassed $1 billion in sales, the retailer’s “most successful brand launch ever,” said Kroger president and COO Mike Ellis in a March 5, 2015, conference call.

Natural Products Sales at a Turning Point And now, according to this year’s Market Overview, published in Natural Foods Merchandiser’s June 2015 edition, the industry has reached a tipping point, in that, for the first time, sales of natural and organic products in conventional retail stores exceeded overall sales in the traditional natural foods retail channel by a slim margin. “It could be the year we look back on, and remember as the turning point for when natural became everyday,” wrote Christine Kapperman, Natural Foods Merchandiser’s Editor in Chief.

Overall sales of natural and organic products grew by 9.1% in 2014, reaching $120 billion. Traditional natural products retailers reported $49.1 billion of those sales, or 40.7% of the market, with a growth rate of 8.0%. However, conventional retailers claimed slightly higher sales of $49.6 billion, higher growth of 10.6%, and a larger piece of the pie with 41.2% overall sales, as distribution and availability of natural and organic foods spreads to all corners of the country.

Internet Sales Post 13.7% Growth A smaller but growing market segment – the Internet – recorded ecommerce sales of $4.6 billion in 2014 for a 3.8% share of the market, up from $3.5 billion in 2013, representing an impressive 13.7% growth in sales. Practitioners, too, are registering a significant share of the dietary supplements and natural remedies market, with steady growth averaging 10% over the past two years, and $4.2 billion in sales in 2014.

Multi-level marketers, such as Amway, Herbalife, Nu Skin, Shaklee and others, continue to maintain an 8% market share, reporting $9.1 billion in sales in 2014, primarily through dietary supplements, personal care and other non-food items. However, growth in this sector has slowed slightly from 5.7% in 2013 to 5.4% in 2014. Sales by traditional mail order are slowing, too, from 8.7% growth in 2013 to 8% growth and sales of $3.8 billion in 2014.

Snack Foods Lead Category Growth Categories showing the strongest performance in 2014 include snack foods, posting 12% growth and $2.8 billion in sales; dairy ($3.5 billion total sales; 10.3% growth); meat, fish and poultry ($1.9 billion total sales; 10.2% growth); condiments ($1.2 billion total sales; 9.4% growth); beverages ($5.8 billion total sales; 8.4% growth); and packaged & prepared foods ($3.6 billion total sales; 8.4% growth).

Sales of organic products in the U.S. rose 11.3% in 2014, totaling $39.1 billion, despite the industry having to deal with tight supplies of organic ingredients, reported the Organic Trade Association in April 2015. Organic food sales totaled $35.9 billion in 2014, an 11% jump over the previous year, while sales of organic non-food products increased nearly 14% to $3.2 billion, the biggest jump in this category in six years, reported OTA.

Independents Develop Strategies to Compete As natural and organic products, especially the leading brands in the category, become more available throughout the U.S., independent natural foods retailers can thrive by focusing on service and newer local, regional and national brands that don’t have access to the larger retail chains, Yadim Medore, Managing Director of Pure Branding, told the Merchandiser.

According to Pure Branding’s new report, the Natural Products Marketing 2015 Benchmark Report, produced in partnership with SPINS, large manufacturers with annual sales greater than $15 million, while comprising only 3% of all natural products manufacturers, command 85% of market share. This presents an opportunity for independent retailers to differentiate with unique, younger, authentic brands. Also, high interest in local, gluten free and non-GMO can also benefit independent retailers, Medore said in the Market Overview.

Co-ops a Bright Spot The 2015 Market Overview also reported that retail co-ops or cooperatives are a “bright spot on the natural retail landscape.” National Co+op Grocers, a business services organization for co-op grocers, reported a rise from 136 members in 2013 to 144 in 2014 with combined sales of $1.7 billion, up 7% from the previous year, and the Cooperative Grocer Network, a trade organization, estimates there are 300 co-ops total in the U.S. and another 100 in various stages of development, and that there is “unprecedented interest” in creating new co-ops.

For more information, visit http://newhope360.com/news-analysis/nfm-market-overview.

Steven Hoffman is Managing Director of Compass Natural Marketing, providing brand marketing, PR, social media, and strategic business development services to natural, organic and sustainable products businesses. He is the former Editorial Director of Natural Foods Merchandiser Magazine and co-founder of the LOHAS Journal. Contact steve@compassnatural.com.

Sales of Non-GMO Products Top $8.5 Billion, Post 20% Growth

Photo: Compass Natural

Sales of products carrying the Non-GMO Project Verified seal now total more than $8.5 billion, growing at more than 20% annually, reported Megan Westgate, Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, a non-profit organization based in Bellingham, Washington. More than 22,000 products now carry the Non-GMO Project Verified seal, representing more than 2,100 brands, she said.

To qualify for the seal, a product has to be certified as containing ingredients with less than 1% genetic modification. Westgate said that’s a realistic standard, while totally GMO-free is not, particularly in an environment where more than 90% of conventional crops including corn, soy, canola, alfalfa, sugar beets and cotton are genetically engineered. “Interestingly, with all of this traction in the natural sector, we’re seeing more conventional companies coming on board and having their products verified,” Westgate told Iowa Public Radio in a December 17 interview.

To date, FoodChain ID, a third-party auditor that certifies products for the Non-GMO Project, has verified 17,000 ingredients from 10,000 suppliers in 96 countries. David Carter, General Manager of FoodChain ID, said he could barely keep up with the number of inquiries coming from companies that want Non-GMO Project certification. “The demand is now very, very high and it has been for probably over a year,” Carter said. Visit www.nongmoproject.org.

Health Conundrum: Pesticides in Tea

Source: Wikimedia Commons

When companies sell non-organic tea produced with pesticides, what are consumers really sipping?

Tea, an ancient plant first discovered in China, is today arguably the most popular beverage in the world. Millions of people from every corner of the world drink tea primarily for its many health benefits and soothing, energetic and/or medicinal qualities.

Yet, many consumers may not know that tea leaves are primarily dried and not washed after they are harvested. Why is that important? If the tea is not organically grown, toxic synthetic pesticide residues can – and sometimes do – remain on conventionally grown tea leaves until the first time they touch water – in your cup.

Residues Exceed Limits

Organizations including Greenpeace and CBC News conducted independent testing on tea leaves, and found that 59% of samples tested contained pesticide residues in excess of EU government limits. Testing also found that 67% of tea leaves sampled in India contained residues of the pesticide DDT, banned in India since 1989 and in the US since 1972. Some teas were found to contain more than one pesticide, and one tea product tested by CBC, the Canadian Broadcast Corporation, contained 22 different pesticides.

“Some of the pesticides found – including endosulfan and monocrotophos — are in the process of being banned from use in some countries because of dangers to the environment and to workers,” CBC said in an article on March 8, 2014. Endosulfan has been banned globally under the Stockholm Convention due to its particularly toxic properties.

Additionally, Greenpeace in 2013 randomly tested 18 tea products from China – the world’s largest tea producer and one of the world’s largest users of pesticides – and found that “a whopping 12 of the 18 samples tested contained at least one pesticide banned [in China] for use on tea.”

Even teas carrying “natural” claims may not be immune to pesticide residues if they have been conventionally grown using synthetic pesticides, reports Vani Hari, editor and publisher of Food Babe, a blog dedicated to promoting healthy lifestyles and investigating food companies and their products.

Don’t Panic – Drink Organic!

So what’s a tea lover who wants to avoid pesticide residues to do? Friends of the Earth suggests drinking tea that is organically produced without the use of toxic, synthetic insecticides, herbicides or fertilizers.

One tea maker, Belight Tea of Phoenix, AZ, offered this advice to tea drinkers on its blog:

“Generally speaking, white tea tends to have the least pesticide residues; black tea the most. That has to do with picking time: the longer the leaves are on the bush, the more they are exposed to, whether intentionally or inadvertently.”

Another organic tea company adds, “From the outset, we’ve been committed to 100% organic cultivation,” said Linda Appel Lipsius, Co-Founder and CEO of Denver-based Teatulia Organic Teas. Teatulia sources its teas from its own 3,000-acre, USDA Certified Organic and Rainforest Alliance Certified tea garden in Northern Bangladesh. “Transparency is key where possible,” she said. “Since we are the farmers, organic tea produced without the use of toxic, synthetic pesticides is something we have always been able to guarantee.“

Colorado is Underdog in GMO Labeling Election Battle

Photo: Pexels

With more than $25 million poured in to defeat statewide GMO labeling ballot initiatives in 2014, a small cabal of multi-national biotech, pesticide and junk food companies seeks to buy the elections in Colorado and Oregon.

Seeking to crush a groundswell movement in the U.S. to label genetically modified (GMO) foods, a small group of multi-billion-dollar pesticide, biotech and junk food companies have poured more than $14 million into Colorado in September and October to defeat Proposition 105, a grassroots voter initiative to label GMO foods.

Just 10 corporations, including Monsanto, DuPont, PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Kraft, General Mills, Hershey, Smucker, Dow and Kellogg, are responsible for more than $13 million of the $14.3 million total contributed to kill the Colorado GMO labeling bill.

Also of note among the donors seeking to defeat the Colorado GMO labeling bill are Abbot Nutrition and Mead Johnson, companies that make nutritional formulas for infants and the elderly – companies that do not want mandatory GMO labeling on their packaging.

In contrast, while more than 170,000 Coloradans signed petitions to place the bill on the November statewide ballot – nearly twice the number of signatures needed – the underdog Right to Know Colorado campaign has raised less than $1 million in cash and pledges, mostly through small business donations along with hundreds of $5, $10, and $25 contributions to the campaign from primarily Colorado citizens.

“I can’t understand why these corporations would put over $14 million into a Colorado campaign where the pro-labeling side has less than $1 million,” said Larry Cooper, Co-chair of the Right to Know Colorado campaign. “What are they trying to hide?”

More Biotech Funds Targeted to Colorado than Oregon Ironically, while a similar GMO labeling voter bill in Oregon, Measure 92, has been able to raise significantly more funding - $6.3 million in total - biotech has pumped more into Colorado than Oregon to defeat the GMO labeling measure - although that gap is closing rapidly as Election Day approaches. Monsanto, PepsiCo, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Land O'Lakes, General Mills, Hershey and other chemical and food multinationals top the list of donors to the No on 92 campaign in Oregon. To see the list of donors to both the Yes and No sides in Oregon, visit http://gov.oregonlive.com/election/2014/finance/measure-92/.

Delayed until the Colorado Supreme Court finally cleared the initiative to move forward in March following a complaint filed by the anti-labeling opposition, the Right to Know Colorado campaign got a late start but surprised industry followers by collecting more than twice the number of signatures needed to place the bill on the November ballot.

The Yes on 105 campaign has received important media endorsements from the Daily Camera, Colorado's second largest newspaper, and BizWest, one of the state's leading business journals. Additionally, in September, a 20-member Citizens Initiative Review panel endorsed Colorado’s Prop. 105 to label GMOs by a vote of 11-9. (A similar panel in Oregon voted 11-9 against Measure 92.)

In Colorado, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage, and Whole Foods Market have provided significant support for the Yes on 105 campaign, helping to get out the vote through their stores and via endorsements and social media.

Major contributors to Colorado's Yes on 105 and also the Oregon pro-labeling campaign include Presence Marketing/Dynamic Presence, Food Democracy Now, Organic Consumers Association, Annie's Inc., Dr. Bronner’s, Boulder Brands and others. For a complete list visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org/donors and www.oregonrighttoknow.org/endorsements.

Grassroots organizations endorsing the Right to Know Colorado ballot initiative include Moms Across America, Rocky Mountain Farmers Union, Colorado Moms for GMO Labeling, Conservation Colorado, Alliance for Sustainable Colorado, Hazon, and others.

Seeing this rising tide of grassroots consumer and citizen support for GMO labeling as a threat to profits, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont, Pepsi, Coke, Kraft, Grocery Manufacturers Association, and other pesticide, biotech and junk food companies have teamed up to spend more than $125 million over the past three years to defeat GMO labeling ballot initiatives in California and Washington in 2012 and 2013, and in Oregon and Colorado this year.

More than 93% of Americans want GMO labeling, according to a 2013 New York Times survey, and in late September, before the anti-labeling ad blitz on TV, 71% of Colorado voters favored GMO labeling, yet less than three dozen chemical, pesticide and junk food companies continue to fight history with a withering amount of cash to barrage the airwaves in Oregon and Colorado with deceptive advertising to confuse voters about GMO labeling - and to buy our elections.

To donate, volunteer, or for information and to support the GMO labeling campaigns in Colorado and Oregon, visit www.righttoknowcolorado.org and www.oregonrighttoknow.org.

Steven Hoffman has served as lead fundraiser for GMO labeling campaigns including Prop. 37 in California in 2012, Washington State's I-522 in 2012, and Proposition 105 to Label GMO Foods in Colorado in 2014.

FDA Gives Meaning to “Gluten Free” Claim

With the August 2 publication of the FDA’s final gluten-free (GF) labeling rules, natural food, supplement, and in certain cases, beer producers now have standardized means for promoting gluten-free foods to their customers in a voluntary, verifiable, and consistent manner. Considering that “gluten-free” health claims accompanied more than 11% of all new specialty food products released in 2012, a 2.6% increase from the year before, the FDA’s decision serves a readily expanding market.

Understanding the Law and Implementation The guidelines establish a maximum threshold for gluten content in gluten-free foods as 20 parts per million (ppm) (200mg/kg), which is consistent with international standards defined in the UN’s Codex Alimentarius and determined by FDA to be the scientifically most reliable minimum measurement for gluten content currently available. However, because of the voluntary nature of reporting (manufacturers are not required to label products as gluten-free), as well as no official FDA standardized certification scheme or stamp (a lá USDA Organic), the onus of verification and accountability to consumers ultimately falls on producers.

The ruling took effect on Sept. 4, 2013, but any company looking to update its packaging or any other marketing materials has until Aug. 5, 2014, to comply.

Industry Implications First and foremost the new rule is meant to benefit consumers avoiding gluten out of medical necessity, for whom the risks of consumption range from gastric discomfort to osteoporosis and intestinal cancer. However, according to Laura Kuykendall, Director of Marketing for Glutino, a gluten-free manufacturer founded in 1983, consumers adopting a gluten-free lifestyle are clearly increasing. As a result, Glutino has embraced the use of third party GF certification. “Transparency about process and providing information to consumers is the most important factor" when dealing with medically sensitive consumers, Kuykendall explained.

Jeanne Cloutier, Director of Operations at Alter Eco, an importer and producer of Fair Trade foods, explained that because of the nature of gluten allergies, GF consumers are extremely well educated on manufacturing processes and regulatory issues, “much more than most people are with, say, the USDA Organic standard.” Currently, both companies certify with GFCO, the largest GF certifier operating in the United States.

Depending on how a company plans, implementation costs can be kept to a minimum. Alter Eco waited until its labels required several changes before printing updated packaging. And while costs vary, regular, high caliber testing doesn’t need to be expensive. Ultimately, both women conclude, for gluten-free consumers, your brand is only as good as your reputation. "It’s a trust thing,” says Cloutier, “but somebody needs to validate that logo."

-- Sam Kressler

Market Research: Fruit Flies Say Organic is Better

You may have heard, of all things, about recent research related to organic food and fruit flies published in the respected scientific journal Plos One. The study, conducted by Dallas middle-school student Ria Chhabra, tracked the effects of organic and conventional diets on the health of fruit flies. By nearly every measure, including fertility, stress resistance and longevity, flies that fed on organic bananas and potatoes fared better than those who dined on conventionally raised produce, according to the New York Times. The study, which earned 16-year-old Chhabra top honors in a national science competition, provided “evidence that organically raised food may provide animals with tangible benefits to overall health.”

U.S. families, too, are flocking to organic foods, with 81% of families reporting that they purchase organic at least sometimes, says the Organic Trade Association (OTA) in its survey, “U.S. Families’ Organic Attitudes and Beliefs Study,” conducted in January 2013. Nearly half (48%) of those who purchase organic foods said they do so because “they are healthier for me and my children.” Among the top reasons to purchase organic are the desire to avoid toxic and persistent pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics and growth hormones, and genetically modified organisms or GMOs. More than four in 10 parents (42%) said their trust in organic products increased, vs. 32% who indicated this point of view a year ago. “More and more parents choose organic foods primarily because of their desire to provide healthful options for their children,” said Christine Bushway, Executive Director of OTA.

However, in a March 2013 Harris Interactive poll of 2,276 U.S. adults, more than half (59%) agreed that labeling food or other products as organic is just an excuse to charge more. "What surprised us most was that while Americans are showing more concern for the environment, they aren't necessarily willing to pay more to do anything about it," said Mike de Vere, Harris president. "While Americans feel better about the economy, many are wary of the 'greenwashing' concept that gives companies a chance to cash in on consumers who want to help the planet but are confused by all the eco-friendly jargon." Manufacturers who convey the true value of organic while offering a fair price will be better positioned to win over this skeptical consumer.

Similarly, the Hartman Group discovered in its 2012 Organic and Natural Report that only slightly more than half (54%) of consumers surveyed believe “organic” means non-GMO. While GMOs are prohibited in certified organic production, the proliferation of non-GMO seals, often appearing next to the USDA Organic seal on packaging, may have diluted the consumer’s perception that organic also means non-GMO.

However, OTA reports that U.S. families are becoming increasingly aware of the presence of unlabeled genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in foods in the marketplace, with one-third (32%) of U.S. households turning to organic to avoid GMOs.

Graphic: Courtesy of The Hartman Group, www.harman-group.com.

On the Sustainable Food Horizon for 2012: Organic Market Trends

Source: Wikimedia Commons

As we embark on 2012, we wanted to highlight a few issues and trends that we feel impact the natural, organic and sustainable foods industry. We hope this presents some resources and food for thought as we face new challenges in growing the market for healthy, sustainable food.

• Consumer Health Concerns Drive 10% Natural and Organic Products Growth

• GMOs: Biotech Gains Ground; Consumers and Organic Industry Fight Back

• Another Price of GMOs? Organic Dairy Feed Shortages and Higher Organic Milk Prices

• Climate Change Is Affecting Agriculture; Rodale Shows Organic Farming More Resilient

• Feeding The World’s 7 Billion; Surprise Fact: More People Are Overweight than Hungry

• Equal Access: Improving the Availability of Healthy Food

• Fukushima Update: Cesium in Organic Milk, Contaminated Seafood on Horizon

Consumer Health Concerns Drive 10% Natural and Organic Products Growth

With the overall economy showing signs of recovery, Boston-based investment banking firm Canaccord Genuity is bullish on the natural and organic products industry, which, says analyst Scott Van Winkle, is currently growing in the 10% range due to strong consumer demand for quality, health and nutrition, compared to 1% growth in overall food sales. More than three-quarters of US families purchase some organic foods, according to a November 2011 Organic Trade Association (OTA) survey. Those surveyed revealed that their strongest motivator is the belief that organic products are “healthier for me and my children,” followed by concerns over the effects of pesticides, hormones, antibiotics and GMOs, and the desire to avoid highly processed or artificial ingredients. “In a time when the severity of the economy means making tough choices, it is extremely encouraging to see consumers vote with their values by including quality organic products in their shopping carts,” said OTA Executive Director Christine Bushway. While baby boomers have been early adopters of organic, younger Gen X and Gen Y consumers are emerging as supporters of organic and sustainable products, with Gen Y showing the highest usage of organic products and natural personal care; they just don’t have the same buying power yet as boomers, says research firm Natural Marketing Institute. However, it’s still tough out there for independent natural products retailers and manufacturers, as competition is intense for the healthy consumer’s dollar.

Canaccord Genuity’s Healthy Living Index of more than 40 publicly traded natural, organic and healthy lifestyles companies continues to outperform the S&P 500, with companies including UNFI, Whole Foods Market and Hain Celestial Group seen as darlings of Wall Street. “Strong growth is apparent across all channels of distribution,” says Van Winkle. According to OTA, sales of organic products totaled $29 billion in 2010, up 8% from 2009. Organic companies are creating jobs at three times the rate of businesses overall and supporting 14,540 organic farms and ranches in all 50 states, totaling 4.1 million acres of land currently in organic management, says OTA. Categories of organic products charting significant growth include fruits and vegetables (12% of all fruits and vegetables now sold in the US are organic), dairy, beverages, packaged foods, supplements, clothing and fiber, personal care products and pet foods. Meanwhile, total sales of natural and organic products by all retailers, including natural and mass merchandisers, grew 7.3% in 2010 to more than $65 billion, says industry communications leader New Hope Natural Media, with similar growth projected for the foreseeable future, as long as the economy continues to recover. Add to that the fact that sales of Non-GMO Verified products grew to $1 billion in 2011, and the health-conscious consumer is driving the market with the motto, “It’s the organic apple a day that keeps the doctor away!”

Back to Top

GMOs: Biotech Gains Ground; Consumers and Organic Industry Fight Back

GMO agriculture continues to present the greatest threat to organic and sustainable food production. Here in Boulder, CO, a center of organic products business, despite three years of contentious public hearings, a survey showing that 71% percent of Boulder County residents are against GMOs, and a growing body of research demonstrating the health and environmental risks associated with the widespread adoption of GMO agriculture, the Boulder County Commissioners voted unanimously in December to allow the cultivation of GMO sugar beets on taxpayer-owned Open Space land. The publicly owned land is leased to a handful of conventional farmers who claim they cannot compete unless they use GMO seed and Roundup herbicide. GMO farming continues to dominate more than 90% of major commodity crops, including corn, soy, cotton, canola and sugar beets. This past year GMO alfalfa was approved for market and Monsanto introduced GMO sweet corn to supermarkets’ produce sections. Both are prolific pollinators that will increase the risk of genetic drift and contamination of organic and native crops. Genetically engineered salmon designed to grow faster than native species narrowly missed FDA approval in 2011—but is still on the docket to be the first genetically engineered animal product to be approved for market. Should such a fish escape into the wild, a likely occurrence, native species could be seriously threatened. Meanwhile, scientists at the China Agricultural University are developing genetically engineered cows to produce milk that contains the characteristics of human breast milk that they hope to bring to market in two years.

The organic industry has been labeled Luddites in its opposition to GMOs by conservative Boulder columnist Bob Greenlee, and was discredited profusely in the Boulder County hearings as being against farmers’ right to coexist. Yet proponents of GMO agriculture ignore science that shows GMO insecticide toxins ingested in the diet were present in the blood of 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses tested; that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, is so prevalent in the environment that it is being detected in the air, rain and rivers during the entire growing season in the Midwest; that engineered genes may jump into the DNA of other species in the environment with unknown consequences; that Roundup-resistant superweeds are emerging as a result of GMO farming; that pesticide use has actually increased by nearly 400 million pounds since the introduction of GMOs in 1996; that GMO corn is losing its effectiveness against insect pests in four major crop-producing states; that Purdue University Professor Emeritus Don Huber is being discredited for identifying an unknown new disease infecting plants and animals that has a strong association with GMO agriculture.

Now consumers and organic leaders are fighting back. In September, a number of organizations, including OTA, Rodale Institute, Environmental Working Group and others, together with the Center for Food Safety, filed a legal petition calling on the FDA to label genetically engineered foods; more than 450 partner organizations have signed on to help spread the word, and individuals are encouraged to sign the petition. In October, thousands of people participated in the 300-mile Right2Know March from New York to Washington to demand mandatory labeling of foods containing GMO ingredients. In California, petitioners are actively gathering signatures for an April 2012 deadline to place the California Genetically Engineered Food Act calling for labeling of GMO foods on the 2012 California ballot. The Organic Consumers Association’s Millions Against Monsanto has been supporting the initiative. Non-GMO activists in Boulder County are regrouping to pursue a referendum, beginning with a “GMO Free Boulder” benefit concert featuring Ziggy Marley on January 21. "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it," Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, told the Kansas City Star in 1994, shortly before GMOs were first introduced to the marketplace. With 96% of consumers saying GMOs should be labeled, according to a 2011 MSNBC Health Poll, it’s a statement that stands true today.

Also, attention natural food manufacturers: a class action lawsuit filed in December against Frito Lay by a California law firm alleges that the company misleads consumers by making all-natural claims on its Tostitos and SunChips, which also contain GMO corn and vegetable oils, ingredients the claimant says are not natural. As many natural products contain GMO ingredients, the outcome of this case should be of interest to natural products businesses.

Back to Top

Another Price of GMOs? Organic Dairy Feed Shortages and Higher Organic Milk Prices

The increased production of GMO corn for conventional animal feed and biofuels, including corn ethanol, is costing organic consumers indirectly by creating a shortage of organic grain needed for feed for organic dairy operations. The cost of organic feed and hay has risen sharply in the past year as farmers find it more difficult to source non-GMO and organic grains, while the price farmers receive for their organic milk has not, says the December 29, 2011, New York Times. Yet, consumer sales of organic milk increased 15-17% from January through October 2011, according to USDA, while total conventional milk sales dropped 2%. Organic dairy farmers, many of whom have cut back on production because they can’t afford the feed, are demanding a 20% increase in the price they receive for their milk, creating out-of-stock situations in Publix stores throughout the Southeast, and retailers Wegmans and Target say they, too, have been affected by organic dairy shortages. The Times reported that organic dairy leader Organic Valley raised the price paid to farmers in August 2011, and was considering raising the price further this past December, alarmed that some organic dairy farmers were actually abandoning organic for conventional farming, where the cost of feed is significantly less and the price paid for conventional milk has risen. Meanwhile, the direct cost to organic consumers is going up: a half-gallon of organic milk that typically sells for $3.99 may now sell for $4.39, with some supermarket chains already raising their prices. Farmers are asking retailers to do their part by lowering their markup on organic milk so that higher prices do not drive consumers away. A couple of messages are garnered from this story: 1) Organic dairy farmers need to be paid more for their milk so they can make a sustainable living; 2) More and more acreage is being dedicated to GMO corn production for human and animal consumption and for the growing demand for ethanol, which is reducing organic land conversion, increasing GMO contamination risks, and raising the cost for organic feed and organic milk. Now with the deregulation of GMO alfalfa, which threatens organic alfalfa crops, organic dairy farmers are even more at risk.

Back to Top

Climate Change Is Affecting Agriculture; Rodale Shows Organic Farming More Resilient

First it was chocolate, and now peanut butter. In September, the International Center for Tropical Agriculture reported that rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns associated with climate change will dramatically reduce land area suitable for cocoa production between 2030 and 2050, particularly in Ghana and the Ivory Coast in West Africa, where half the world’s cocoa is sourced, impacting the $9 billion cocoa industry. In October, the Wall Street Journal reported that record heat and drought in the southeastern US and Texas had decimated the peanut crop, raising prices 30-40% on supermarket shelves and leaving small organic peanut butter producers pinched for supplies. A 2011 crop-yield analysis by Stanford University revealed that warming temperatures have reduced wheat and maize harvests by 5.5% and 3.8%, respectively, from what they could have been during the past three decades.

While GMO agriculture continues to promote that it is the solution to climate change and world hunger, the fact is that conventional and GMO farming, with its intensive use of water, fossil fuels and chemicals, is responsible for 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions – more than any other sector of the economy. Meanwhile, in 2011, the venerable Rodale Institute released the results of its 30-year field trials, America’s longest-running comparison of organic and conventional farming practices. Its primary conclusions: 1) organic yields match conventional yields; 2) organic outperforms conventional in years of drought; 3) organic farming builds rather than depletes soil organic matter, making it a more sustainable system; 4) organic farming uses 45% less energy and is more efficient; 5) conventional systems produce 40% more greenhouse gases compared to organic farming practices. “As we face uncertain and extreme weather patterns, growing scarcity and expense of oil, lack of water, and a growing population, we will require farming systems that can adapt, withstand or even mitigate these problems while producing healthy, nourishing food. After 30 years of side-by-side research…Rodale Institute has demonstrated that organic farming is better equipped to feed us now and well into the ever changing future,” said the authors of the report.

Back to Top

Feeding The World’s 7 Billion; Surprise Fact: More People Are Overweight than Hungry

The world’s population reached 7 billion this year. Of that total, nearly 1 billion people suffer from chronic hunger. As has been true for a long time, much of the problem is rooted in political unrest, armed conflict and civil war vs. the ability to produce food or engage in trade. Rising prices and climate change exacerbate the issue. Proponents of industrial and GMO agriculture persist in dismissing organic as an option to feed the world, spreading misinformation that there isn’t enough land, even as scientific studies conclude that not only can organic feed the world, but that it may the most viable option of doing so. Research from the University of Michigan and the United Nations shows that in developing countries, where risk of famine is greatest, organic methods could double or triple crop yields. “Organic agriculture can be more conducive to food security in Africa than most conventional production systems, and it is more likely to be sustainable in the long term. Furthermore, evidence shows that organic agriculture can build up natural resources, strengthen communities and improve human capacity, thus improving food security by addressing many different causal factors simultaneously,” said the UN.

Meanwhile, here’s an astonishing fact: there are more overweight and obese people on the planet than hungry people. An estimated 1.46 billion adults worldwide are overweight, with 502 million of them considered obese, according to a 2011 World Health Organization report. Ironically, according to the Red Cross, excess nutrition leading to obesity is killing more people today than hunger. “If the free interplay of market forces has produced an outcome where 15% of humanity are hungry while 20% are overweight, something has gone wrong somewhere,” said Red Cross Secretary General Bekele Geleta. The obesity epidemic is not just affecting wealthy nations; it is sweeping into low and middle-income countries, says WHO, creating a dual problem of unhealthy weight gain in some segments of a country's population, and malnutrition in others. While nearly all countries are seeing rates rise, the severity of the problem varies greatly from country to country. In Japan, about one in every 20 adult women is obese, compared to one in four in Jordan, one in three in the United States and Mexico, and up to seven in 10 in Tonga. The across-the-board rise in obesity appears to be driven by changes in the global food system and the increased availability of processed foods, along with more sedentary lifestyles, say the authors. Adding more weight to the subject, researchers from Oxford and Columbia Universities forecast in The Lancet in August 2011 that nearly half of the US and UK populations will be obese by 2030, with a resulting increase in incidence of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and cancer. The combined medical costs associated with treatment of these preventable diseases are estimated to increase by approximately $50 - $60 billion per year in the US and by approximately £2 billion per year in the UK by 2030. Hence, effective policies to promote healthier weight also have economic benefits, the researchers conclude. Healthy food marketers that can help provide solutions to obesity will benefit as society realizes that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Back to Top

Equal Access: Improving the Availability of Healthy Food

Three primary obstacles remain to making healthy, natural and organic food more accessible. One is that the price of highly processed, cheaply produced food is just that—cheap, and organic products seem expensive in comparison. Market research firm the Hartman Group found that when consumers were asked why they didn’t buy more organic products, the reason most often cited (71% of the time) was that organic was too expensive. However, if you account for all the government subsidies enjoyed by industrial agriculture—more than $25 billion annually—and the hundreds of billions of dollars in external costs born by the public in terms of preventable, lifestyle-related diseases, including cancer, obesity and diabetes, plus damage to the environment often caused by chemical-intensive agriculture, then organically produced food, with its higher nutritional density and environmental benefits, is certainly the better value all around.

A second obstacle is that many people don’t have access to organic—especially those in inner city or rural areas. The USDA estimates that currently 30 million people in the United States live in “food deserts,” areas where healthy food is difficult to obtain, or “food swamps,” urban areas with no access to fresh foods but flooded with unhealthy fast food instead, according to the May/June 2011 Organic Processing. Progress is being made, with the advent of farmers markets, CSAs and urban agriculture programs. In an event produced by Compass Natural in September 2011 with Best Organics Inc. and held in partnership with the University of Colorado Deming Center for Entrepreneurship at the Leeds School of Business, Whole Foods Market Chair John Elstrott announced the retailer’s plans to reach new customers in historically low-income areas with new stores slated in neighborhoods of inner-city Detroit and New Orleans. "We believe all people want to eat healthy," Elstrott said. "We want to experiment with the inner-city demographic."

The third obstacle is that most children who eat school lunches are given no access to organic during a time when toxins in food can affect their development the most. First lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! Campaign, which led to the president signing the Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010—includes a $10-million Organic Pilot Program to help provide organic food choices in school nutrition programs. Also, many organic companies, including Nature’s Path, Veritable Vegetable, Organic Valley and others have been working to get organic food choices into schools. In higher education, a growing number of colleges are increasing healthy organic offerings and incorporating sustainability in their dining halls, including Cornell University, University of Colorado, and University of California at Berkeley.

Back to Top

Fukushima Update: Cesium in Organic Milk, Contaminated Seafood on Horizon

If you think that Fukushima hasn’t affected our food, think again. From rice and tea to beef and baby formula, radiation released from the March 2011 nuclear power plant disaster in Fukushima has contaminated a significant amount of Japan’s food, presenting an alarming health risk to its population. The nuclear explosions and subsequent meltdowns in three heavily damaged reactors, caused by an earthquake and tsunami, have released 70 tons of highly toxic nuclear material into the environment, according to nuclear power expert Arnie Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, one of the world’s foremost authorities on the Fukushima event.

By May 2011, the enormous cloud of radioactive fallout created by the accident ended up not only in Japan, but also throughout North America, from Seattle to Boston, all the way to Europe, transported swiftly around the globe in the Jetstream. Most but not all of the fallout was deposited on the ground in the Cascades and the Rocky Mountains. Soon after, milk, drinking water and topsoil from Hawaii to Vermont began testing positive for radiation, including radioactive iodine and cesium, caused by the Fukushima disaster. By summer, a number of fruits, vegetables, mushrooms and other products grown or harvested in California—a major food producing region in the US—tested positive for radiation caused by Fukushima’s fallout.

At the end of September, more than six months after the Fukushima event, store-bought milk samples from an organic dairy producer in the San Francisco Bay Area with a Best Buy date of Oct. 10, 2011, tested positive for radioactive cesium 134 and cesium 137, according to the UC Berkeley Department of Nuclear Engineering, which has detected radiation in organic milk since testing began in mid-April. Also, tests found radioactive cesium 137 in topsoil in downtown Oakland and in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas, suggesting widespread contamination. In November, UC Berkeley announced it was no longer testing soil or locally produced milk or vegetables, as its facilities were undergoing remodeling; however, the department stated that milk sampling would resume when the work is finished. In a report presented in late October by the Worcester Polytechnic Institute's Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering in Worcester, MA, researchers claim that US topsoil may actually contain levels of radioactive cesium more than 100 times higher than previously reported by UC Berkeley, suggesting a far greater impact on public health, farm production and fishing, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Currently there is no monitoring being done by government agencies.

The good news is that airborne fallout has mostly abated since the initial explosions last March, yet in the Pacific Ocean, a vast floating debris field from the earthquake and tsunami containing potentially radioactive material is soon expected to wash up on shores of the Pacific Northwest, threatening the environment and coastal residents. Pacific seafood is also at risk, as more than 460 trillion bequerels of radioactive strontium, plutonium and other isotopes have leaked into the ocean from the stricken Japanese reactors. The incident is being called one of the world’s most severe marine pollution disasters in history. “There’s a witches brew of chemicals leaking into the ocean…that eventually works its way up to the salmon and tuna and mackerel at the top of the food chain,” said Arnie Gundersen in a Dec. 26, 2011, radio interview with environmental health expert Helen Caldicott, MD. “It will be next year before we start to see the highly contaminated [seafood]. I’m eating as much salmon as I can this year because I’m a little bit concerned about what will happen next year,” he said. According to Greenpeace, governments and retailers are not adequately protecting the public from radioactive contaminated Pacific seafood, still sold unlabeled in Japan and international markets, including to the US, due to an alleged pact between the US and Japan.

Critical of the lack of testing of seafood by EPA, Gundersen said, “In our ports in the US, we have monitors that look for nuclear weapons; it’s likely that in a year from now, a truckload of tuna may fire off a radiation alarm because it’s loaded with cesium. At that point, hopefully, there will be a whistleblower at the dock to alert the authorities,” because, he says, the objective of the US, Japanese and other governments throughout the world has been to minimize the consequences of the disaster. “There’s way too much money on the line,” Gundersen concludes.

A lot of lives are at stake, too, starting with the young—infant mortality in the US has risen more than 10% since the Fukushima accident, say the authors of a new study published Dec. 19, 2011, in the International Journal of Health Sciences. The study links an estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the US alone, and potentially thousands more, to radioactive fallout from the Fukushima accident. The rise in reported deaths was highest among US infants under age one. “Deaths are seen across all ages, but we continue to find that infants are hardest hit because their tissues are rapidly multiplying, they have undeveloped immune systems, and the doses of radioisotopes are proportionally greater than for adults," the authors said.

In disturbing news reported by Reuters on December 28, scientists in Alaska are now investigating whether local seals are being sickened by radiation from Fukushima, as scores of ring seals have washed up on Alaska’s Arctic coastline since July, suffering or killed by a mysterious disease that is causing extensive lesions and patchy hair loss in the animals’ fur.

So, what can one do to protect oneself and family, as the costs of the Fukushima accident, estimated at $257 billion, continue to escalate? Eat Icelandic butter, North Atlantic salmon and vegetables grown in the Southern Hemisphere? How about advocating for greater safety regulations and monitoring of aging nuclear reactors in the US, particularly those situated in major earthquake and tsunami zones, and also trying to slow the ambitions of the likes of Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who wants to build 100 new nuclear plants in the US in the next 20-30 years? Because it can happen here, and our food system, economy and population centers are not prepared for the consequences. Nuclear energy is clean, until it isn’t, and we need to invest in alternatives. Get informed; stay active; make a difference: www.enenews.com; Greenpeace.

Steven Hoffman writes on issues in sustainable food and agriculture. He is Managing Partner of Compass Natural LLC, a full service marketing, communications and public relations agency serving natural, organic and sustainable businesses. He also is Co-owner of Best Organics Inc., a leading online retail provider of premium artisan organic gift basket collections. He is Cofounder of the annual LOHAS Forum green business conference, former Director of The Organic Center, dedicated to scientific research and education about organic food and farming, and former Editorial Director of the Natural Foods Merchandiser, a leading industry publication. Hoffman also served as Program Director for Natural Products Expo, the world’s largest natural and organic products trade expositions, and as Marketing Director for pioneering organic foods manufacturer Arrowhead Mills. As a Peace Corps Volunteer, Hoffman specialized in food, agriculture and education in Central America. He is a former director of the Philadelphia Urban Gardening Program, and holds a M.S. in Agriculture from Penn State University. Visit www.compassnatural.com.

Copyright 2012, Compass Natural LLC, Boulder, CO. www.compassnatural.com. All rights reserved.

Back to Top