The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
Tag: produce
Battles Rage In Oregon, Colorado Over Genetically Modified Foods

Battles Rage In Oregon, Colorado Over Genetically Modified Foods

By Michael Muskal, Los Angeles Times

Voters in two Western states are caught in fierce battles over whether consumers will know what is deep inside their food.

Oregon and Colorado on Nov. 4 will decide the fate of labeling laws for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, the latest fronts in a battle over packaging. Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado call for labeling food so that purchasers know whether they are buying products that contain materials that have been genetically engineered or modified.

The states could become the first to pass such a referendum; Washington and California rejected similar measures after expensive campaigns in 2013 and 2012, respectively. Vermont approved such labeling through the legislative process, but the issue is still being fought in the courts.

In its most basic terms, the ballot measures pit coalitions of foodies, organic farmers and nutrition activists against many of the nation’s leading manufacturers including the biotechnology company Monsanto, Kraft Foods, and Coca-Cola. The coalition fighting against labeling has also included large grocery chains and some farmers, and some of the labeling advocates are sizable companies in their own right.

Those who want the label contend that consumers are entitled to know whether their food contains GMOs so that they can make informed decisions about their purchase. Opponents fear labeling will stigmatize their products and will place an economic burden on consumers because of the higher costs associated with separating out modified products from others.

A GMO is any plant or animal that has been modified with outside DNA, a practice companies contend is useful as a way to increase yield or provide protection against some diseases.

Still, GMOs carry the stigma of past debates that centered on “Frankenfood,” and raise fear of good, scientific intentions running into unexpected consequences. That is an ungrounded fear, say scientists who have studied the issue. A 2008 report by scientists for the National Academy of Sciences found no health problems associated with using GMOs and well more than a majority of all commercial products have them.
The current battle in Colorado mirrors those positions.

“What California really did was wake up the country,” Larry Cooper, co-chairman of Right to Know Colorado, told the Los Angeles Times. Even though the California labeling proposition lost, Cooper said the effort helped raise awareness on the issue.

In Colorado, the supporters of the labeling campaign are heavily outweighed by their opponents: $700,000 to an estimated $12 million, Cooper said.

“It’s definitely a David-versus-Goliath thing,” Cooper said, adding he was proud of the grass-roots support his side had marshaled.

“If they are so proud of GMOs, why would they be opposed” to a measure that advertises them on the label? Cooper asked.

Opponents contend that labeling measures could hurt the people they were designed to help.

“We oppose state-by-state mandatory labeling laws like Measure 92 in Oregon and Proposition 105 in Colorado,” said Monsanto spokesman Thomas M. Helscher said in an email to the Los Angeles Times. “The reason we don’t support them is simple. They don’t provide any safety or nutrition information, and these measures will hurt, not help, consumers, taxpayers, and businesses. We support a federal approach which ensures food safety and consumer choice.”

In Oregon, the battle has become the costliest over a ballot measure in the state’s history.

As of the weekend, the two sides have raised $16.7 million, The Portland Tribune reported.

Monsanto has donated more than $4 million to defeat Measure 92, it was reported.

On the other side, the Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps company, which has supported similar labeling battles elsewhere, has given $1.15 million.

And in a clever public relations move, Ben & Jerry’s, the Vermont ice cream company and label supporter, renamed its popular Chocolate Fudge Brownie flavor to Food Fight Fudge Brownie to draw attention to the ballot initiatives.

Photo: CT Senate Democrats via Flickr

Want more national news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Study Finds Five Servings Of Produce Is Enough, But We’re Not Eating It

Study Finds Five Servings Of Produce Is Enough, But We’re Not Eating It

By Mary MacVean, Los Angeles Times

How many times will we have to be told? Apparently we haven’t reached the point when we’ll change our habits, but here goes again: Eating five servings of fruits and vegetables every day can help us live longer.

That comes from researchers’ analysis of 16 studies covering 833,234 people, published this week in the BMJ.

Scientists from China and the United States looked at the growing evidence of a connection between produce consumption and heart disease and cancer. They wanted to quantify the “dose response” — or how much we need to eat — in relation with all causes of death, heart disease, and cancer.

The average risk of death from all causes was reduced by 5 percent for each additional daily serving of fruits or vegetables; risk of cardiovascular death was reduce by 4 percent for each serving. They did not find the risk of cancer to be appreciably associated with produce consumption.

“There was a threshold around five servings of fruit and vegetables a day, after which the risk of all-cause mortality did not reduce further,” the scientists wrote Tuesday.

This conclusion contradicts a finding published recently in the BMJ’s Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, in which researchers led by Oyinlola Oyebode of University College London wrote that people “eating seven or more portions of fruit and vegetables daily have the lowest risk of mortality from any cause.”

One of the researchers involved in the more recent study, Wei Bao of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, said his group’s analysis did not find additional benefits over five portions.

“There could be debate on how much, but we should be aware that the average intake across the world is very low, far below five,” Bao said.

The studies followed participants for up to 24 years and tallied a total of 56,423 deaths — 11,512 from heart disaese and 16,817 from cancer.

Bao said it’s possible that there is an optimal dose or particular kinds of produce that would affect cancer death rates.

Andy Bellatti, a registered dietitian, noted that half a cup of cooked leafy greens counts as a serving, as do about a dozen baby carrots or six asparagus spears. But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that only about a quarter of American adults eat vegetables three or more times a day, he said.

In the earlier study, the researchers noted that people do not eat enough produce, citing difficulty in changing habits, lack of motivation, lack of time, and cost.

Those scientists used the 2001-08 Health Surveys for England, plus several years of follow-up, on more than 65,000 people 35 and older. The study subjects reported eating an average of 3.8 servings of produce — 1.5 of them vegetables. The study didn’t know how many of those were French fries, which tops many lists of vegetable consumption.

Eating at least seven servings was linked to a 42 percent lower risk of death from all causes, 25 percent lower from cancer, and 31 percent lower from heart disease or stroke in the study period, after excluding deaths within the first year of the monitoring, the researchers reported.

The World Health Organization recommended in 1990 that people eat at least five servings of fruits and vegetables a day to protect against cardiovascular disease and some cancers.

These studies suggest potential not only for individuals, Bao said, noting that to “promote people to consume more would be of some benefit” in terms of policy.

AFP Photo/Johannes Eisele

Interested in health news? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

Auto execs. want to sell you an electric car

Despite polls indicating an unwillingness to pay for the technology, auto executive are pushing ahead with plans to produce and market electric vehicles. Mark Perry, Nissan’s North American product planning chief, estimated that electric vehicles will take 10% of the market over the next 10 years. The Center for Automotive Research disagreed, releasing a study saying car prices could jump by up to $9,000 to cover manufacturing costs, which could cannibalize any money the consumer was hoping to save on gas. [Detroit Free Press]