Food Labeling Laws
Jenson Hagen
We are a biomolecular composition of the food we eat, water we drink and air we breathe. If you don't believe me, hold your breath for around 10 minutes and see what happens.
We cannot disregard the importance of a proper diet -- a diet that reflects our evolutionary heritage. We should wholeheartedly agree that any genetic modification to food must be captured and shown to consumers through labeling laws. The extent of genetic modification of our food is more widespread than we perhaps realize. The Future of Food is a really good movie that parallels Food, Inc. and can be viewed for free at Hulu.com.
Oregon's Measure 27 back in 2002 would have forced the makers of processed foods to present GMO labeling. It was defeated, but that should not stop the effort to provide consumers with better information about the genetic purity of the foods they consume.
It is becoming more and more clear that fructose is a considerable source of ill health. In normal concentrations, fructose is actually good for us. But we are consuming 50-100 times more than what we normally ate during the past 60,000+ years. Our body was not designed to process such high levels of fructose. These high levels of fructose lead to higher blood triglyceride levels, higher production of lactic acid and uric acid, higher oxidative stress and so forth.
The worst is the roll that high levels of fructose play in inhibiting our body's weight management system. Even on a high fat diet, a person might gain weight, but that person should stay within the maximum range of what the weight management system will allow. Our diets now include large amounts of items, including fructose, that conflict with this weight management system. We have in effect taken the cap off and produced a society that is growing increasingly obese. We have internal mechanisms in place to prevent this. Obesity to this extent is preventable if we allow our bodies to work as designed.
But people don't know this stuff. Nor do they realize that organic evaporated cane juice is equally harmful as high fructose corn syrup. We have labeling laws already that require mention of sugars, but we need to extend that to specify fructose. If a food is high in fructose, it needs to be flagged in the labeling area.
The same with saturated fat. We are confusing lauric acid, a 12-chain saturated hydrocarbon, with palmitic acid, a 16-chain saturated hydrocarbon -- and the two have completely distinct functions in the human body. Our labeling laws should differentiate between medium and long-chain saturated fats.
This is a new decade and a chance to regain our health one meal at a time.
|
0 readers like this.
Like it!
|
Jan 2, '10
There is much more education out there about GMO foods than there was before. Back in 2002 I was opposed to labeling GMO foods because I did not understand the health risks. For example bees can actually die when they come in contact with GMO corn being grown. I think a ballot measure may have better support now. I think we should start with baby steps and work on GMO first. Knowledge on high fructose corn is growing and with in a year or two you will have a population that may want this labeled in a way where it can not be purchased on accident.
Jan 3, '10
I think products containing HFCS are already labeled. The sugar is included in the ingredient list on processed foods. I know it's caused me to stop using quite a few products that I used to use and I've gone to back sweetening with syrups I make myself out of sugar (glucose) so that I can get away from usinging so much fructose, and it's just plain easier to gauge how much of any type of sugar I'm using/consuming if I use products made by myself.
I really do think that education is key here. You can put all the labeling you want on a given product, but unless people understand what the risks/benifits of the materia/substnance, etc. that the label is highlighting, it won't do anything other than clutter up the packaging.
I agree that products manufactured with GMOs should be labeled as such. People in this country would be surprised at how many GMO labels would be popping up. Soy, sugar (sugar beets), corn, cotton, Papayas, and in the future alfalfa, wheat, and other plants. I wonder it the chicken, beef and pork, turkey, duck, geese, etc. that are fed those feed grains would have to be labeled as feed using GMO grains? Not sure how far downstream the labeling would have to go.
Jan 3, '10
I'm not convinced that yet more food labelling laws will change the eating habits of most in the U.S. However, I'm also not going to fight what appears a reasonable attempt at further consumer education.
These labelling requirements so far have had no positive impact on what we eat or the QUANTITIES that we eat. Both serving size and quantity have increase, dramaticall, over the past 40 years.
So, lets pass this and other labelling requirements, but with the caveat that if, after 10 years there is no demonstrable positive that the practices be curtailed and other attempts be made.
Jan 3, '10
It is amazing the cultural blind spot we have for sugar. I had an early intro because I was a total addict. Used to heat kool-aid to dissolve more into it. About 3 cups/quart was about right. Never had breakfast or lunch until I was in my 20s. Just the flavored IV. At the time I knew something was wrong, but no one would ever discuss the matter. My mother looked at it as the fundamentalist's crack, and my father never understood why people drink when they could have sugary soda pop. The only positive role model I ever encountered was Jack LaLanne. He was arguably 100 years ahead on the matter. He was an addict until his teen years as well. BTW, not that I care much- really- but not eating refined sugar is the fountain of youth. My SO is the best example on the planet. Consciously does EVERYTHING imaginable to destroy his health. Except eat refined sugar. Looked 28 for 20 years. Most guess he's 30 something, and is actually over 50. Not a gray hair, not a wrinkle. This from a "type A" on steroids, that misses no opportunity to abuse his body.
The key to my getting control of it was moving away from home. Still had to deal with my mother trying to send me as much chocolate and crap as she could on holidays, to tempt me, and finally had to stop talking to her to maintain my diet. That is how threatening this conversation can be to many. They literally put it ahead of their children's life choices. It's always the same when you do without something the culture finds essential. You get lots of venom because your lifestyle announces that it does not have to be so.
Of course, those were the dark ages compared to today. No labeling? How about no choice/substitutes either! I waited 7 years for Nutrisweet to be developed, after the science underlying it was announced. As a minor in Chemistry, I can tell you that Splenda uses a molecular structure that we could only have dreamed about, literally, in the 1970s. You can now get almost everything sugar free. I don't even have an automatic out when people go to the ice cream parlor anymore.
Three big areas that could be improved though.
Jan 3, '10
Yes history does show that it may not make an impact, but I think the point is people have right to know regardless if it improves eating habits.
9:48 a.m.
Jan 3, '10
It's simple enough for a consumer to see if products have high fructose corn syrup. That's already on the label for most products, but it would be nice to know more about the composition of sugars in food products as we currently do with fats. It may not affect every consumer's behaviour, but my family reads the labels on foods that we buy.
The presence of high fructose corn syrup in most bread and yogurt products has encouraged us to switch to local producers -- Tillamook for yogurt and Franz for bread -- who carry several products without it.
Jan 3, '10
One note on the term "GMO grains". You either have them, or you don't. If you do, there are no "non-GMO grains" properly speaking. I worked a hybrid seed corn operation for 15 years, and I can tell you that the pollen doesn't know where the field boundaries are. If someone is growing GMO corn, all the "normal" corn is cross-pollinated by it as well. Of course we're talking cross-pollination in the range of a few percent, but it's an example of how both sides make the debate too black and white.
GMO techniques are used directly on livestock. "Gene therapy"- that's GMO techniques with humans- are moving forward, and already exist. We should have done the research first, but the genie is out of the bottle. Before the 75% of species vanish in the next 50 years, they will already not be the species that evolved. Add to that that certain chemicals in the environment can cause permanent changes to species, as is happening with the big cats and environmental estrogen mimicking compounds.
I'm delighted to think that this debate could happen in Portland. I've encountered a number of groups that take anti-GMO rhetoric as dogma and are quite hostile to your asking questions. I have a friend that interviewed with OSPIRG, and the interview lasted about 3 minutes after he questioned the wisdom of dumping tons of GMO corn on the Capitol steps, wasting it. All he asked was, "would the poor be grateful for your actions"? It was only 3 minutes because they had to explain how rich kids with full time staff positions at non-profits have a level of awareness that is far beyond the poor's and allows them to agitate for their interests.
Jan 3, '10
Comrade Hagen, tax policy should be used to combat unhealthy foods and additives. Or complete banning of certain foods like twinkies. Just think of all the additional tax revenue that could be generated! I don't know if Democrats are working on this or not, but Obama should name a new Czar for this.
Solidarity, Demetri
Jan 3, '10
No more Federal Czars please. Its getting absurd. Getting a law passed in Oregon is one thing, making it uniform across the land to empower Feds is another. They are nothing more than a tool anyway.
Jan 3, '10
Wake up Galen! You're responding to the lowest of goddamned dittohead human excrement! What a surprise "Wunderblunder" is back! I wrote this 10 days ago:
BTW, do you notice how the dittoheads always disappear at a major vacation time? Proves most are spoiled teens and 20 somethings still living at home. That idiot that starts every dittohead post with "Comrade," is pretty conspicuous. Spring break, Christmas, end of August, always goes quiet. Good example of the essential conservative thinking, "I've got mine, screw you and I'll get you if you threaten it". Also an example of the saw, "anyone that's a conservative in youth has no heart".
Jenson, Carla insults posters in the rudest terms for simply questioning her. If you're going to have the same, motherfucking Rush rimmer show up to say, "Comrade...hey, mirror Beavis, I said 'comrade'", every fucking time, then you are quite within your rights to simply delete it. It isn't speech; it's calculated (as much as he can) harassment from a bratty fuckhead. Don't give him a forum. Bored, he'll go away. You might even help him. I can tell you that if I am ever listening to a conservative and he starts with that predictable spiel, he will find just how far my foot can go down his throat. You might be saving his life. You'll definitely be saving our wasted time.
This is the #1 challenge to American politics. Will you condone purely abusive talk as "free speech", regardless of how it stymies progress in debates, every goddamned time?
Jan 3, '10
I reallized your comment in this commenting site saturated fat is basically the stuff that's bad for you, raises cholesterol, increases risk of heart attack etc.. It's usually from an animal source and shouldn't really be taken too often, but other fats are good as part of a healthy diet. Where to Buy Lean Muscle x
Jan 4, '10
Six considered comments, a troll and a link spammer? Might as well have had this conversation on the bus.
This was an excellent post. The fact that no one is interested in discussing this when they could be name calling the opposition on ballot measures has answered my wondering if reading BO was worth it anymore. Sadly, I have to conclude, based on present form, that you are throwing your pearls before swine, Jenson!
Jan 4, '10
I think he did a great service by posting this. The fact that there is little conversation may mean mostly agreement. The point is there may be little opposition to marking foods that are GMO and his post may be good indicator of support by the few comments shown. How many pro comments can a person make? Another point, is we have not seen any real argument against it. I can't think of one, but if there is one, we need to hear it so it can be processed.
Jan 4, '10
If I stopped serving sugar my kids would leave home and my husband would beat me bloody! I don't drink or smoke. Am I supposed to go through life without being able to get high now and then? Sugar is my high, and I can't imagine living even one meal with zero. I was stranded on a flight, sitting 6 hours on the tarmack last year, and I and everyone else just about went freaking crazy not having anything sweet. It's just not normal. I never want to go that long again. Felt horrible!!!
I've met people that are "sugar free". All of them smoke weed and eat psychedelic mushrooms. If you want a person to take only one drug, would it be sugar or weed? That's why we have legal sugar! It's also completely legal to drive stoned out of your gourd on sweets. "Mocha not mota!"
"Vote DP; It's easier than thinking!"
Jan 4, '10
Generally speaking I have regarded Mr. Hagen as a wacko, but I share the concern over HFCS. It is becoming extremely difficult to purchase grocery products that do not contain HFCS. Even products that you don't think contain "sugars" have HFCS added. Fortunately you can buy Coke imported from Mexico that is made with cane sugar at Costco or Cash-n-Carry, but otherwise most soft drinks are made with HFCS. If the US had a sane foreign policy US manufacturers could buy sugar from Cuba at prices that would easily be competitive with cheap Farm Bill subsidized HFCS, but that seems unlikely to happen any time soon. So we are stuck reading labels and paying more for niche products that don't contain HFCS.
9:43 p.m.
Jan 4, '10
If you were as intelligent as insulting Greg D., you would realize that the constituency of sugar is nearly the same as HFCS. We have bastardized high fructose corn syrup and somehow we ignore the fact that sugar, organic evaporated cane juice, honey, maple syrup and this list goes on contain almost equal portions fructose and glucose.
There are glucose sweeteners, although they are not as sweet. I see more products now with stevia. Still, the overall objective would not be to remove fructose completely from the diet, but to consume it in moderation. Look at any food pyramid.
Jan 4, '10
"Still, the overall objective would not be to remove fructose completely from the diet, but to consume it in moderation. Look at any food pyramid."
Do you buy fruit juice? Do you buy 100% juice, or something else? Have you noticed that some juices now advertise on the front label "no high fructose corn syrup"? That allows people who want to limit their intake to make a choice.
Isn't that "the free market"?
Jan 5, '10
LT, I know you hate freedom and the free market and prefer your fellow man in chains to serve your social agenda, but yes you are correct. Marketing products that advertise no HFCS is capitalism at its finest. While people are saying that HDCS and sugar are the same, I was under the impression that the glycimic index of HFCS is considerably higher than honey for example thus making it more dangerous. My knowledge in this area is rather limited so I could be wrong.
<hr/>