Organic Labeling: What does it really mean?

[Blackbird]

I'm taking an Environmental Health Science class in school (LOVE this class) and part of this week's topic is organic food.

Most of us probably know all about this, but I still learned a few things. Not sure HOW true all of this info is though.

_____________________________

Organic Labeling: What does it really mean?

USDA The U.S. Department of Agriculture sets the guidelines for the organic label which basically comes in two flavors; 100% Organic and Organic.

Agricultural products labeled 100 percent organic and organic
Products labeled as 100 percent organic must contain (excluding water and salt) only organically produced ingredients and processing aids.

Products labeled organic must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Any remaining producing ingredients must consist of non-agricultural substances approved on the National List including specific non-organically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form.

Agricultural products labeled 100 percent organicand organic cannot be produced using excluded methods, sewage sludge, or ionizing radiation.


Processed products labeled made with organic ingredients

Processed products that contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients can use the phrase made with organic ingredients and list up to three of the organic ingredients or food groups on the principal display
panel. For example, soup made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients and only organic vegetables
may be labeled either soup made with organic peas, potatoes, and carrots or soup made with organic vegetables.




Other terms you may see on food labels

You may see other terms on food labels, such as "all-natural," "free-range" or "hormone-free." These descriptions may be important to you, but don't confuse them with the term "organic." Only those foods that are grown and processed according to USDA organic standards can be labeled organic.

In order to use free range or free roaming on a label, poultry producers must provide a brief description of the bird's housing conditions with the label when it is submitted for approval. The written description of the housing conditions is evaluated to ensure the birds have continuous, free access to the out-of-doors for over 51% of their lives(through their normal growing cycle). During the winter months in a northern climate, birds are not "free range," if they stay in coops all winter. Producer testimonials that support the use of the claim must state how the birds are raised in a northern climate in winter in order to conform to the meaning of "free range" during the winter months.





All Natural Label
According to the USDA a natural product does not contain artificial flavor, coloring ingredient, or chemical preservative, or any other artificial or synthetic ingredient, and the product and its ingredients are not more than minimally processed. Minimally processed means that traditional processes used to make food edible, preserve it, or make safe or the physical processes that do not fundamentally alter the raw product or that only separate a whole food into component parts, e.g., ground beef.





Hormone Free Often times you will see the label on the left in milk. Farmers who do not administer the rBGH hormone to their cows may put this label on milk.

Be careful if you see the label on poultry products. The USDA does not permit the use of hormones in poultry production.
Therefore, the label no hormones added cannot be used on the labels of poultry unless it is followed by a statement that says Federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones. USDA does not allow a hormone-free label.


Organic food: Buy or bypass?

Many factors may influence your decision to buy or not buy organic food. Consider these factors:

* Nutrition. No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA even though it certifies organic food doesn't claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.
* Quality and appearance. Organic foods meet the same quality and safety standards as conventional foods. The difference lies in how the food is produced, processed and handled. You may find that organic fruits and vegetables spoil faster because they aren't treated with waxes or preservatives.
* Pesticides. Conventional growers use pesticides to protect their crops from molds, insects and diseases. When farmers spray pesticides, this can leave residue on produce. Some people buy organic food to limit their exposure to these residues. Most experts agree, however, that the amount of pesticides found on fruits and vegetables poses a very small health risk.
* Environment. Some people buy organic food for environmental reasons. Organic farming practices are designed to benefit the environment by reducing pollution and conserving water and soil.
* Cost. Most organic food costs more than conventional food products. Higher prices are due to more expensive farming practices, tighter government regulations and lower crop yields. Because organic farmers don't use herbicides or pesticides, many management tools that control weeds and pests are labor intensive. For example, organic growers may hand weed vegetables to control weeds, and you may end up paying more for these vegetables.
* Taste. Some people say they can taste the difference between organic and nonorganic food. Others say they find no difference. Taste is a subjective and personal consideration, so decide for yourself. But whether you buy organic or not, finding the freshest foods available may have the biggest impact on taste.

 

[big brown horse]

Hi BB! (Long time no talk! )

That answers lots of questions I had about labeling! Thanks for the info!

 

[Blackbird]

Genetically Modified Organisms

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can be defined as organisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species.
The Monsanto Company has placed a gene from a soil bacterium into the genome of a potato plant, giving the potato plant resistance to a common pest, the Colorado Potato Beetle. These potatoes are now commercially grown in the U.S. The pesticide that used to be sprayed on the potatoes to fight the beetle is no longer necessary



The U.S. is the primary producer of GMO foods in the world. GMOs are often referred to correctly as "transgenic organisms" and "genetically engineered organisms." In addition to plants, many types of bacteria and animals have all been genetically engineered. Bacteria are used to produce human protein, such as insulin, through the insertion of the human gene into their genome. Additionally, goats have been engineered to produce valuable human protein in their milk and pigs to produce hemoglobin in large quantities in their blood.


GMO Crops: What is being planted?

In 2006, 252 million acres of genetically modified crops were planted in 22 countries by 10.3 million farmers. The majority of these crops were herbicide- and insect-resistant soybeans, corn, cotton, canola, and alfalfa. Other crops grown commercially or field-tested are a sweet potato resistant to a virus that could decimate most of the African harvest, rice with increased iron and vitamins that may alleviate chronic malnutrition in Asian countries, and a variety of plants able to survive weather extremes.


Research is being done to create bananas that produce human vaccines against infectious diseases such as hepatitis B; fish that mature more quickly; cows that are resistant to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease); fruit and nut trees that yield years earlier, and plants that produce new plastics with unique properties.



Benefits of GMOs

* Crops
o Enhanced taste and quality
o Reduced maturation time(ready for harvest faster)
o Increased nutrients, yields, and stress tolerance
o Improved resistance to disease, pests, and herbicides
o New products and growing techniques
* Animals
o Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency
o Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
o Improved animal health
* Environment
o "Friendly" bioherbicides and bioinsecticides
o Conservation of soil, water, and energy
o Bioprocessing for forestry products
o More efficient processing
* Society
o Increased food security for growing population: could put an end to malnutrition and famine




GMO Benefit: Pest Resistance

Crop losses from insect pests can be substantial. Crop loss results in devastating financial loss for farmers and starvation of people in developing countries. Farmers typically use many tons of chemical pesticides annually to control and eliminate the pests that destroy crops. Many consumers do not wish to eat food that has been treated with pesticides because of potential health hazards, and run-off of agricultural wastes from excessive use of pesticides and fertilizers can pollute the water supply and cause harm to the environment. Growing GM foods such as B.t. corn ( a genetically modified corn) can help eliminate the need to apply chemical pesticides and reduce the cost of bringing a crop to market



GMO benefit: cold and drought resistant crops

Cold tolerance Unexpected frost can destroy sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene from cold water fish has been introduced into plants such as tobacco and potato. With this antifreeze gene, these plants are able to tolerate cold temperatures that normally would kill unmodified seedlings.

Drought tolerance/salinity (salt) tolerance As the world population grows and more land is used for housing instead of food production, farmers will need to grow crops in locations previously unsuited for growing food. Creating plants that can withstand long periods of drought or high salt content in soil and groundwater will help people grow crops to help ensure a food supply.



GMO Benefit: Nutrition

Malnutrition is common in developing countries where impoverished people rely on a single crop such as rice as the main staple in their diet. However, rice does not contain adequate amounts of all necessary nutrients to prevent malnutrition. If rice could be genetically engineered to contain additional vitamins and minerals, nutrient deficiencies could be alleviated. For example, blindness due to vitamin A deficiency is a common problem in developing countries. Researchers at the Swiss Federal Institute for Plant Sciences have created a strain of "golden" rice containing an unusually high content of beta-carotene (vitamin A).

 

[sylvie]

The GMO presentation is certainly very positive. Who is funding the curriculum; Monsanto?
I take issue with most of the benefits list.

The entire text reads like it was written by a Madison Avenue advertising agency expressly for public relations.
Thanks for posting this; it gives insight into what is presented to young impressionable minds, doesn't it?

Are you able to challenge any of this in debate or is it structured to circumvent discussion; I mean if you disagree, of course.

And as always, this is JMHO

 

[Wifezilla]

Who is funding the curriculum; Monsanto?

LOL

Most likely!

It's like vet schools being sponsored by dog food companies that then get vets to sell their food or research in to the benefits of a high carbohydrate diet being sponsored by cereal manufacturers.

Here is some GMO info to take to class...
http://www.dispatch.co.za/article.aspx?id=385964
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...B76F779D663BDDD3862576DF007F122B?OpenDocument
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/03/sustainable-ag-ge-alfalfa-threatens-organics/
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/...geting-american-farmers-with-lawyers-fear-an/

 

[sylvie]

One of the things that I see from your links, WZ, is the monoculture crop mentality that is being sold to other countries, as well as here.

 

[Wifezilla]

That appears to be the heart of all the problems....monoculture. Nature works as a system. When you ignore/discard/strip out everything but one part, you end up with more problems than you solve.

 

[Blackbird]

I'm glad I'M not the only one who noticed that.

I have 'argued' with my teacher over some of the subjects and the info presented as well. Especially the lessons about pesticide usage. (I don't think she's particularly fond of me)

At the end, there is an question about the student's over-all opinion, but I agree, the majority of it is one sided. If this is the kind of stuff they are teaching people - of course people are going to fall into a 'trap' of sorts.

Nonetheless, my favorite class this semester because it actually goes over quite a few things that we talk about here.

The next lesson is called GMO Controversies, so I'm interested it seeing what they've got to say in that lesson. I'll let you know.

 

[Blackbird]

GMO: The Controversy

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations and other scientists and government officials have all raised concerns about GM foods, and criticized agribusiness for pursuing profit without concern for potential hazards, and the government for failing to exercise adequate regulatory oversight. It seems that everyone has a strong opinion about GM foods. The Vatican and the Prince of Wales have expressed their opinions. Most concerns about GM foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns. This lesson will explore each of these areas in more detail.


Environmental Hazards:Unintended harm to other organisms

A laboratory study was published in the scientific journal Nature showing that pollen from B.t. corn (remember from the last lesson that B.t corn has been genetically modified to be pest resistant) caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, not corn, but the fear is that if pollen from B.t. corn is blown by the wind onto milkweed plants in neighboring fields, the caterpillars could eat the pollen and perish. Although the Nature study was not conducted under natural field conditions, the results seemed to support this viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kill many species of insect larvae indiscriminately; it is not possible to design a B.t. toxin that would only kill crop-damaging pests and remain harmless to all other insects.



Environmental Hazard: SuperBugs and SuperWeeds

Another concern is that crop plants engineered for herbicide tolerance and weeds will cross-breed, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes from the crops into the weeds. These "superweeds" would then be herbicide tolerant as well. Other introduced genes may cross over into non-modified crops planted next to GM crops.

Genetically engineering crops to be herbicide-resistant or to produce their own pesticide presents dangerous problems. Pests and weeds will inevitably emerge that are pesticide or herbicide-resistant, which means that stronger, more toxic chemicals will be needed to get rid of the pests. We are already seeing the emergence of the first "superweeds" as GE herbicide-resistant crops such as rapeseed (canola) spread their herbicide-resistance traits to related weeds such as wild mustard plants. Lab and field tests also indicate that common plant pests such as cotton boll worms, living under constant pressure from GE crops, will soon evolve into "superpests" completely immune to Bt sprays and other environmentally sustainable biopesticides. This will present a serious danger for organic and sustainable farmers whose biological pest management practices will be unable to cope with increasing numbers of superpests and superweeds.


Human Health Risk: Allergens

In 1996 a major GE food disaster was narrowly averted when Nebraska researchers learned that a Brazil nut gene spliced into soybeans could induce potentially fatal allergies in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. Animal tests of these Brazil nut-spliced soybeans had turned up negative. People with food allergies (which currently afflicts 8% of all American children), whose symptoms can range from mild unpleasantness to sudden death, may likely be harmed by exposure to foreign proteins spliced into common food products.

Unfortunately the FDA and other global regulatory agencies do not routinely require pre-market animal and human studies to ascertain whether new allergens or toxins, or increased levels of human allergens or toxins we already know about, are present in genetically engineered foods. As British scientist Dr. Mae-Wan Ho points out "There is no known way to predict the allergenic potential of GE foods. Allergic reactions typically occur only some time after the subject is sensitized by initial exposure to the allergen."



Human Health Risks: Unknown effects on Human Health

There is a growing concern that introducing foreign genes into food plants may have an unexpected and negative impact on human health. A recent study examined the effects of GM potatoes on the digestive tract in rats. This study claimed that there were differences in the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes and rats fed unmodified potatoes.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer

On the whole, with the exception of possible allergenicity, scientists believe that GM foods do not present a risk to human health, but not enough research has been done for many scientists to agree with this claim.



Economic Concerns

Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process, and of course agri-biotech companies want to make money on their investment. Many new plant genetic engineering technologies and GM plants have been patented, and patent infringement is a big concern of agribusiness. Yet consumer advocates are worried that patenting these new plant varieties will raise the price of seeds so high that small farmers and developing countries will not be able to afford seeds for GM crops, widening the gap between the wealthy and the poor.



GMO Controversies

* Safety
o Potential human health impacts, including allergens, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers, unknown effects
o Potential environmental impacts, including: unintended transfer of genetically modified pollen through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms (e.g., soil microbes), and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
* Access and Intellectual Property
o Domination of world food production by a few companies
o Increasing dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
o Biopiracy, or foreign exploitation of natural resources
* Ethics
o Violation of natural organisms' intrinsic values
o Tampering with nature by mixing genes among species
o Objections to consuming animal genes in plants and vice versa
o Stress for animal
* Labeling
o Not mandatory in some countries (e.g., United States)
o Mixing GM crops with non-GM products confounds labeling attempts
* Society
o New advances may be skewed to interests of rich countries

 

[Blackbird]

Here is the next assignment.. whoo:

Zambia, a landlocked nation in southern Africa, has suffered from severe drought for two years and is unable to feed many of its people. Yet, the country continues to refuse food aid from the international community.

More than 2.9 million people need food aid, according to the World Food Program, the United Nations agency that fights global hunger. But in August, Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa rejected the corn offered to the county because he says it is poison and poses health risks to his people.

Genetically modified food

The corn in question is genetically modified (GM) maize, mostly donated from the United States. Genetically modified food contains genetic material from another organism. That material has been added to the crop to add traits that the crop did not originally possess, such as resistance to insects or tolerance to drought.

Critics of GM foods say the technology is untested and the long-term effects unknown. In addition, they fear that GM crops will infect a nations native crops, causing later problems. Many critics of GM technology are in Europe, where many GM foods are prohibited or require special labeling. President Mwanawasa has said that he does not want the introduction of GM foods to hurt his export trade with Europe.

The European Union issued statements in November saying that scientists have not found evidence of harm to humans from genetically modified foods. They also said that trade with the EU would not be negatively affected if Zambia accepts the GM food aid.

Zambia's GM food concerns

The World Food Program, which distributes the food aid, says that they wont force Zambia to accept the shipments but they cant guarantee replacement of the corn with different food. They fear that many people will die if they dont receive food. They also worry that people will riot if they do not get the food, which has already been sent to the country and is rotting in storage.

Zambia based its rejection of the genetically modified food on its own scientific report on the food's possible effects on the health and economic welfare of the country. Their report concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show the safety of GM foods. But some critics of the report, including the opposition political party, say that it is inaccurate.

And while scientists debate the research, Zambian myths about the effects of GM food continue to spread. Some believe it makes women infertile, while others think it infects people with HIV/AIDS.

Other countries in the region that need food aid but dont want GM foods are accepting the corn after it has been milled -- a process that prevents the planting of the GM corn seeds. Zambia has rejected this offer. However, Zambia has allowed the milled corn to be given to Angolan and Congolese refugees in camps within the country.

The GM food debate

Many international organizations such as Food First, a research and policy group, have criticized the international community for offering the GM food. They believe that it puts Zambia in an impossible position of having to accept food that the U.S. cannot sell to Europe and Japan or having to refuse international assistance, which it needs.

They also criticize the use of GM seeds, saying the system forces poor farmers to become increasingly dependent on multinational corporations. They recommend the purchase of non-GM foods from other developing countries.

Other human rights groups in Zambia say that the rejection is unrealistic. They believe that Zambia should accept the corn if it is milled.

The debate within the country cuts across political and class lines. Refusing GM foods was popular with the urban elite who saw the issue as a test of national strength. Hungry villagers, however, wanted the food aid, but lacked the political power to accomplish this goal, according to foreign diplomats in the country.


Article written by Annie Schleicher



Please answer and discuss the following question with your classmates. You need to answer at least one classmate to get full credit.

Discussion Question:

You are the President of Zambia. Many people are starving. Would you accept genetically modified food? Why or why not? You need to use information you learned from the article and the lessons this week to defend your answer.Dont' forget that you need to reply to a classmate and give a thoughtful, respectful response. You can disagree but you must remain courteous and defend your reasons.


______

I'm still thinking of what I want to reply with; but here are some of the other student responses that I have to deal with;

Yes, I would definetely accecpt GMO. Any food is better then none. No one should go starving. I don't think it really matters what you eat, as long as you are getting nutrition in your body. Even though GMO foods are filled with chemicals, just about any kind of food has added things these days. Everyone eats it.


My answer is going to be simullar to the other students im sure because i would accept GMO like others have said it is better then starving to death or just having dead people on your hands in genaral. You cannot really have a fully functional econemy when most of the country is famished. Besides it doesnt really taste that bad for being loaded with chemcals.
^ I don't think this student has ever tasted REAL food a day in their lives.

I beleive that also fodd is more important than if you like it or not.


Whether or not I agree with those statements, these are SENIORS! Sure, I make grammar errors, but if I'm submitting something for school I make sure I proof-read! Yeesh!

BTW, out of all the responses, ONLY three said no to taking the food.