When I was a kid, vegetarianism was the dreaded dietary trend of teens and tweens.  It was a right of passage that half of us experimented with after reading Charlotte's Web, and probably a quarter of us actually continued with.  It's still a phase discussed in numerous books and magazine articles.  But the newest dietary trend (the kind that isn't for weight loss) seems to revolve around organic choices.
When my daughter came to me and said she was considering cutting out corn and soy (on top of the gluten and dairy she already avoids) I was a little worried that she wasn't feeling well.  No, no, she was quick to assure me, it's just that corn and soy are usually GMO in the US.  And she doesn't want to eat genetically modified organisms.
She reassured me that it wasn't my reading choices that made her think.  It was an article about how good GMOs are that convinced her.  She disagreed with the article, and their evidence that most corn and soy grown in the USA are GMO and 'not hurting anyone' really concern her.  People have cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and increased incidents of food allergy and intolerance.  We don't know why, but diagnosis like chronic fatigue and various depression issues appear to be on the rise as well.
I was impressed by her argument, and we discussed how we can focus on organics but I don't want her to obsess over small amounts of corn or soy or conventional fruits and veggies.  It's more important to have a varied diet than to avoid specific farming practices.  Besides, as a family, we have enough to worry about when it comes to what goes into our bodies! In fact, I figured that our own dietary awareness was what set her off. 
But I've been listening in check out lanes.  And at playgrounds.  Not to mention while waiting for classes to let out.
It seems that my teenager isn't the only young lady concerned with the safety of genetically modified foods, and corn syrup.  Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dillemma" was published in a kid friendly format (which I need to look up) and has been making the middle and high school rounds.  Parents are commenting that their kid's sudden interest in ingredient lists, and desires to avoid high fructose corn syrup or soy are taking parents by surprise.  Some are asking to shop at Whole Foods, or refusing to eat anything not labeled organic.  Their parents aren't sure what to think.  Or how far to support the cause.
After all, teenagers are famous for changing their minds.  Like the parents of the 70's who were tempted to sneak ground chicken into the tofu, today's parents wonder if they should hide the corn syrup laden foods.  And how exactly to do that.
I had to laugh at the conversation about hiding conventional foods.  After all, there is nothing inherently nutritious about corn syrup.  Even the most ambitious propaganda from the corn refiner's association doesn't go so far as to suggest that corn syrup laden food is anything more than equivalent to cane sugar laden food.  The point has always been to convince the public that food is food regardless of how much processing or chemical processes they put it through. 
The concern, which no one seems able to voice properly, is that corn is so entrenched in our food supply that totally eradicating it does cause potential problems.  It doesn't mean that corn is inherently good.  It just means that total avoidance is to today's diet as a vegetarian diet was to the meat and potatoes fare our parents were raised on.  Maybe worse, since there can be corn derivatives used to wash meat or eggs, used in the waxing of fresh fruits, even in the fortification of vitamins.
The answer isn't to do a better job hiding it.  The Corn Refiners association and the FDA seem to be doing a good enough job, if the experience of the Delphi Avoiding Corn forum is any example.  The answer is to look, really take a good, hard, critical look at our dietary staples.  Ask about sources.  Make preferences known, and look for variety as well as organic symbols.  Support local farmers (if you don't avoid corn, include the ones who grow it organic, the on-the-cob variety) and eat close to the source.
The next generation knows they want to make a change.  They know there is something inherently wrong with genetically manipulating plant DNA.  They don't have the words or experience to explain or defend their objections, but that doesn't invalidate them.
The next generation may need guidance in defining their objections.  They need help modifying their choice of diet, whether it is vegetarian or organic or paleo, into something nutritious and balanced.  But they don't need adults to circumvent or override their decisions.  Just as the vegetarians in my day were objecting to the rise of factory farms, today's organic activists just want to make a change.  They want to be proactive.  And like any change in this world, the best place to start is at home.  I hope today's youth is more successful at avoiding corn than my generation was at eradicating factory farming.  But since it's easier to make a statement with a choice to buy organic, to put dollars toward local pesticide free produce rather than processed calories, maybe they'll have a chance. 
I support the cause.  It's not just about corn.  It's about health, for my kids and their future. 

Allergies and the Environment

I'm not sure what it is about allergies; but I find that the farther I delve into them the more aware of our environmental impact I become.
Part of it is the quest for a cause, which may lead to a cure.  Part of it is becoming aware of the way our food chain works, which raises more questions than it seems to answer.  And part of it is simply that the more aware I am of what is IN food, the less I want it in my (or my kids') bodies.  It's not about avoiding allergens.  It's about our safety, and our society's sustainability.
What would we do if suddenly massive truck routes were made impassable?  If we were forced to eat fresh produce and meat without grains?
This happened in parts of Europe during the second world war.  This dangerous diet led to...increased health.  But, during the second world war, we still had memories of how to farm.  We had a little extra space to garden.  We had memories of how to prepare and preserve our own food, or there were plenty of people around who could teach us.
And there were a lot fewer of us to feed.  In an age of microwaves, freezers and take out containers, how many would know how to plan and execute a month's worth of meals if heaven forbid there were no more factory food deliveries?  There's a commercial that we used to laugh at.  "Without us, some guys would starve".
"So true," we joked.
But when we entered the realm of food allergies and started cooking from scratch, we stopped laughing.  With an increased awareness of ingredients, and additives, and the true definition of cooking from scratch, the jingle seemed too hit too close to home.  And all of these realizations led us to an increased awareness of sustainability.  
Allergies themselves are overwhelming, especially when you have a slew of them that require multiple pages to list.  Corn being one of the toughest allergies to live with, since it even shows up in the citric acid rinse on bagged salad.  Sustainability isn't a main concern.
And yet, it is.  Corn is the number one source cited when companies talk about environmentally friendly "green" resources.  But it isn't sustainable.  It isn't a sustainable crop, it requires a lot of gunk to grow industrially, and then it takes a lot of energy and effort to turn cobs into something that doesn't resemble a kernel, an ear or a husk. It's just natural, and sounds more sustainable than petroleum and plastic. 
I now look at food in a new light.  I wonder about the modifications we've put it through the past several decades.  Trying to grow a better variety, something easier or hardier or simply more aesthetically pleasing.  I wonder about the cost of our actions.  The loss of heirloom varieties of plants, the loss of diversity.  I worry about what exactly is coursing through the veins of my children.  I've seen the detrimental effects of food dyes on Bumblebee.  I've seen a playful Penguin double over, pale and sweaty, from a simple snack. 
I hear them complain of random tummy aches or mild headaches, and I wonder what else might be going on.  I look at ingredient lists and ask myself why, exactly, they need BHT or TBHQ.  Xanthan gum might improve the texture, but how much can a body really handle?  And what about all those synthetic vitamins?  Grown en masse in laboratories to try and replace some of the nutrients lost in the soil from our poor farming practices, do our bodies know what to do with them?  And the process itself can't be especially good for the environment.
None of this would ever have been given more than a fleeting thought, I'm certain, if it weren't for the food allergies.  I used to figure that what was in the food wasn't all that bad, I read lists...but not that closely.  Carageenan?  Hypromellose?  tocopherols?  High fructose corn syrup?  They had to come from somewhere.  And the FDA approved them.  That was good enough to consume them in moderation.
And now I wonder.  Not only what they do to us, but what effect do they have on the environment?  What unseen damage can they do?

I note that food isn't the only thing with an ingredient list, and the personal care aisle scares me, too.  Products designed to be washed away into our water supply.  With names like Polyethylene (which, by the way, is bits of plastic designed to help exfoliate.  Bits of plastic and corn derivatives, bound together for eternity and washed into our water supply, where any bacteria and large particles might be cleaned up...but anything minute is likely to remain in tact and be ingested by something else, animal or human.) or ammonium lauryl sulfate (a foaming agent commonly derived from coconut or palm alcohols) what sort of effect do they have on our water supply?  Or the quality of the soil they drain into? 

You see, the awareness of cross contamination, and the inability to sterilize away cornstarch dust or drops of peanut oil, makes me aware that nothing vanishes from our planet.  It may get absorbed, or rearranged, or diluted.  But it doesn't vanish.  The problem may begin, for our family, with allergen containment, but the question of "why" leads us to the bigger picture.  The chemicals and GMO's whose safety I question for my family aren't easily contained. The wind blows, the bees pollinate, and flowers blossom freely.  They don't know where the boundaries between organic and inorganic lay.  And honestly, as a society we don't know the long term effects. 

Most of us don't give it more than a fleeting thought.  I know I never did.  I tried to toss my water bottle into the recycle bin instead of the trash can, I parroted the idea that organic was better but I didn't really deeply care.  Not until the allergies opened my eyes, and I began not only seeing the cause and effect of something as ubiquitous as food but questioning choices I'd never thought to question before. 
While some studies are linking allergies to environmental causes, I'm finding that allergies are lowering our personal environmental impact in a lot of little ways.  Sure, I have to drive farther to get to the grocery store that carries gluten free pasta, but I don't waste time idling in a drive through.  I don't buy many single serve packages, and we gravitate toward environmentally friendly cleaning aids like baking soda and vinegar. 

Truthfully, I don't know if I'm happy to know all I know.  I'd be perfectly happy to still be in the dark regarding the origins of microcrystalline cellulose and astaxanthin.  In fact, I don't think I'd miss being able to spell either one without a cheat sheet.  Awareness breeds responsibility. 
While I can't do as much as I want for the environment, awareness gives me the opportunity to do more than I might have before and allergies give me the motivation.  Maybe someday my grandkids will have a planet to inherit, after all. 

Avoiding GMOs

Handy trick I just learned from America's Test Kitchen : To find out how fresh produce was grown look at the sticker. The one that has little numbers on it (Penguin likes to decorate her lunchbox with them) It also happens to have a secret code.

In brief: 4 digits indicate conventional produce and usually start with a 3 or a 4. 5 letter digits beginning with a 9 are the sought after "organically grown" fruits and veggies. And 5 letter digits beginning with the number 8 should be avoided at all costs, since they stand for genetically modified organisms.

I suppose you can purchase number 8 if you like...but personally I find the concept of designer DNA disturbing. I'll stick to organics, thank you. Or conventional. Even if there is the very real potential of "drift" from GMO fields. I want my money to say NO to GMO. And support the farmers who are struggling to agree.

Turkeys

I'm reading a book called "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" by Barbara Kingsolver. It's an interesting read about one family's endeavor to eat local for one year. They do have a firm foundation in healthy eating habits, and an intimate knowledge of gardening well before their local-vore adventure begins, which is slightly disappointing, but nevertheless; the information within holds my attention.

One fact that has jumped out at me is their Turkey choice. They've chosen to raise their own poultry for this adventure, something I'm not sure I could do (How do you not name an animal you interact with daily?) but, then again, I have trouble eating something I knew used to have a pulse, brain waves, and communication skills. The troubling aspect was the cited fact that around 98% of the turkeys sold annually (from the deli and freezer cases) have been bred for some rather unique qualities.

They are docile. They won't put up a fight at cramped conditions, and don't mind being half crushed for half of their lives.
Their lifespan is limited. If permitted to reach full growth, and wander around, the sheer "normal" weight of their bodies will crush their legs and ultimately, their chest. This, I imagine, provides a rather slow and painful death.
Most disturbing of all; they are incapable of procreating naturally. In fact, there are technicians who are skilled in surgically removing the male's sperm and inseminating the female.

Folks...Americans eat these monstrosities. In fact, we consider them prized fixings. Meanwhile, the days of the wild turkey (the bird that found itself on the table during our first Thanksgiving feast) is in danger of extinction. Varieties of poultry and livestock are not only losing popularity, they are disappearing almost as quickly as the rainforest lands can be cleared to make room for more livestock grazing land.

How is it healthy to eat the flesh of a critter that would not have survived another month if mankind hadn't put it out of it's misery? At least, when that misery is inflicted by mankind's lack of appropriate nourishment and attention?

We play G-d with animals, with plants, with our food supply. We pretend we can outwit mother nature in an operating room, with modern medical miracles. But we don't see the bigger picture. Someday we're going to wake up and realize that we ourselves are dying, and it will be at our own hand.

My kids are growing up in a world that I've helped create. It scares me half to death to think of the problems that I'm leaving behind for them and their children to clean up after. The more I learn, the more disturbed I become. It's not just pollution, global warming, and generations of poor nutrition and the loss of integral health knowledge (our food shouldn't be bright blue) that they need to bounce back from. They're also going to be contending with rampant wild strains of genetically modified and mutated crops, franken-turkeys who can't procreate, massive extinctions and mutations. They'll be cleaning waterways and seeking safe, fertile farmland.

I can see it unfolding like the Ghost of Christmas Future. And we have to do something. More than I am already.

Geneticall Modified Organisms

The very name sounds frightening. But it doesn't come close to the problem.

Why am I talking about Genetic Modifications, or GMOs? The subject has come up frequently since president elect Obama's choice for Secretary of Agriculture, Vilsack, was announced about a month ago. Vilsack is known as a proponent of bio-tech...in ither words, he is believed to strongly support research into genetic modification of crops and animal cloning etc.

GMOs have been the subject of hot debate for many years, and they don't appear to be falling off the docket any time soon. The "pro" side claims that genetic modification has gone on for centuries, and the current gene-splicing research is simply a modern, streamlined version of what orur forefathers did. The idea being that farmers of old would indeed try to cross breed varieties of wheat, corn, oats, etc to bring out the more desirable traits. Like breeding horses, sometimes it worked and sometimes it didn't. And when it didn't, they probably lay in bed thinking that there had to be a better way.

Enter gene splicing. Now we don't have to rely on the whim of mother nature to get the exact traits we're looking for. In a nutshell, scientists find what they are seeking in DNA, then splice the DNA together and watch what happens.

It seems like a good plan. It's certainly more succinct than cross breeding, growing and then harvesting. It's much more scientific than finger crossing and silent prayer.

But the "con" side wants to know about potential pitfalls. Is it safe for human consumption? Is it safe for non-human consumption? Is it safe for the environment? The fact is that we don't know. There's a lot that we just don't know, and that ignorance cn prove fatal for the environment. (I think we're all well acquainted with DDT controversy of the 60's. Dr. Muller actually won a nobel prize for discovering that DDT could be used as an insecticidal. 20 years later, the Dept of Agriculture was phasing it out due to it's possible role in the dramatic decline of the Peregrine Falcon population.)

The threat of GMOs go much deeper than insecticides and pesticides and herbicides. The fear of GMOs comes with the realization that it is virtually impossible to experiment with GMOs and keep the genetically modified genes contained. Nature still does it's job, as it's been programmed to do year after year. Birds eat seed in the field, squirrels steal seed and they get transported. The pollen travels on the wind to another local (organic?) field. And, like time immemorial, the genetic alterations are preserved. Offspring shoot up along highways, and in the middle of other fields. Heirloom varieties of various produce and grain get tainted. These occurrences are impossible to contain, and are impossible to reverse. Even worse? It takes a professional with fancy lab equipment to tell the difference.

That may seem like a good thing. If the only difference between genetically altered crops and normal crops is under a microscope, what's the fuss? Right?

Right?

Wrong. Our bodies may not be able to interpret the difference with our five traditional senses, but over time the differences may reveal themselves.

There was a time when obstetricians reccomended that pregnant women take up smoking, since it made childbirth that much easier. They have turned tables on that advice since the realization that babies with smaller birthrates had a lower survival rate. And a glass of wine is no longer reccomended either, due to the affect alcohol has on a still forming fetus.

These correlations took years to make. And thousands, if not millions, of human beings paid the price. Our children benefit by learning from those mistakes, though.

Genetic Modification doesn't leave room for them to benefit if big companies like Monsanto are wrong. If GMOs are as dangerous to the environment (and the animal life ingesting them) as some people fear, the price will be a hefty one. Clean up efforts will take lifetimes. There will be no starting over from square one, because simply by growing these man-manipulated organisms, we are setting them free in the wild. And honestly...our knowledge is not yet deep enough to truly fathom the potential far reaching implications of those actions.

Through traditional modifications, the gluten content of grain has more than tripled since ancient times. As has the incidence of celiac disease. (Yes, wasting diseases that sound like Celiac were reported even in biblical times) In fact, areas where wheat was most recently introduced (such as southern Ireland) have the highest incidence of Celiac disease.

What does that have to do with GMOs? Well, by using natural resources, humans interfered with nature's plan, developing higher gluten content in wheat and then learned to regret it in certain poulations. Luckily...due to our forced limitations, we were able to identify and treat the problem (hence, 1 in 133 people "simply" avoid gluten containing grains.)

How do we track down reactions to a DNA variability embedded in "normal" food? When one potato chip doesn't attack, but the next one does?

What will happen when a full percent of the poulation needs to avoid GMOs for medical reasons? If that number rises? And those GMOs are rampant in our food supply, blowing unchecked through our prized amber waves of grain?

What if 3 generations down the road, a Nobel Peace prize is awarded to the woman who discovers that early or prenatal exposure to GMOs are linked with heart disease in later life, or infertility, or some new, unknown plague that will only become apparent in our offspring?

What if Genetic Modification isn't a legacy, but a curse?

Organic groups have playfully deemed Genetically Modified Organisms as "Frankenfood", citing the eerily apt connection between Mary Shelley's ignorant but brilliant protagonist and our own agricultural industry's ambitious vision. But just as in her dark fantasy, I fear that "Frankenfood" will come to haunt us for generations to come.

And that's why I signed a petition (I know, internet petitions get little recognition according to Snopes. But it's something.), and sent in letters through a link in this article. And why I prefer organic foods, even when allergies don't demand them.