If one trend has been clear in recent years, it's the desire by consumers to know more about where their food comes from and the way it's produced.

Consumer surveys clearly show a desire for more transparency - not less - on milk labels and the right to choose. Lake Research Partners found 80 percent of consumers supported the labeling of rBGH-free milk products. The Natural Marketing Institute found that 53 percent of shoppers look for dairy products free of artificial hormones.

But, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture told 19 dairies that they cannot use language such as "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones," or "From cows not treated with the growth hormone rBST," starting Jan. 1, 2008.

Pennsylvania Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff said the action was promoted by concerns among "consumer groups," farmers and processors, though the action was entirely in line with the policy position of Monsanto, which makes synthetic bovine growth hormone and has seen its use decline.

Why stop there? Why not ban farmer claims such as "grown without pesticides," "locally grown" or "no artificial preservatives or colors" that create an alternative to conventional products? The same logic used by the state for milk can be applied to these other labels that consumers seek out.

Product labels - whether organic, local, or produced without antibiotics and hormones - provide a way for consumers to get that information and make a choice. So why is Pennsylvania swimming against the tide and severely limiting what farmers and processors can say on their milk labels? And why should the rest of the nation care about what happens in Pennsylvania?

If every state followed Pennsylvania, consumers would be denied the right to choose the products they want and farmers would be banned from describing their production practices. Already, Ohio, New Jersey and Indiana are reportedly mulling similar restrictions.

Critics and scientists have raised questions about the synthetic growth hormone because of poor animal health and concerns about possible links to a cancer-promoting hormone in humans. Monsanto and others argue those concerns are baseless. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved rBGH in 1994, but the drug has been banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Wolff said that since the synthetic hormones cannot be detected in milk, a label that indicates their absence would be impossible to verify. As for antibiotics, all milk is tested to be free of antibiotics so there's no reason to label their absence either. But Pennsylvania's action goes beyond limiting statements about the milk and bans factual statements about production practices as well.

Starting in January, for example, a farmer cannot say on a milk label, "I don't use rBGH on my farm" - even though this statement says nothing about the milk and may be factually correct. Such production claims can be verified. Inspections are required by law for organic farms, for example. Conventional milk producers who also avoid synthetic hormones can issue a legal affidavit to that effect, under penalty of fraud. But Pennsylvania closed off this avenue by saying that such affidavits were now unacceptable as a basis for label claims.

Organic milk companies have not been exempt from the action. Aurora Organic Dairy has gotten a warning letter from the state, and other organic milk companies expect to get cited as well.

This debate isn't particularly new, but it has gained steam, as national companies and retailers seek milk produced without rBGH. Starbucks - which sells more milk than coffee - announced its intention to do so earlier this year and supermarket giant Kroger is too. Many natural food stores have long sold milk produced without synthetic hormones.

By stating their chosen avoidance of rBGH, these companies are following federal directives that have been in place for 17 years. In 1994, when the FDA approved Monsanto's synthetic growth hormone, it allowed production claims such as "from cows not treated with rBST."

For the past several years, Monsanto has sought to limit these absence claims because it believes they disparage producers who chose to use the substance. Monsanto has also been taking legal action to stamp out labels. In 2003, it sued Oakhurst Dairy in Maine over a label statement that read, "Our farmers' pledge: no artificial growth hormones." The suit was settled out of court. Last year, Monsanto appealed to the FDA to review the wording for rBGH label claims and also sought action from the Federal Trade Commission on advertising.

The FDA declined to act, noting that it would only intervene in cases where fraudulent claims were made on the milk label. The FTC also found no instance where a national company made claims about the absence of rBST and dismissed Monsanto's claim. Having struck out with federal regulators, it now appears that Monsanto is lobbying state governments to limit these labels.

Food labels were designed to earn our trust. Since 1990, the Food and Drug Administration has required manufacturers to list the ingredients of their products, and more recently, "Nutrition Facts" boxes appear on everything from cereal to chewing gum.

But as more Americans attempt to make healthy choices about what they put in their bodies, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to discern how our food was grown, processed and treated-thanks to our collective support of a food industry that wields its heft and political clout to create labeling laws that make a mockery of disclosure.

This is a story about a regulatory system increasingly friendly to the notion that consumers aren't smart enough or sufficiently informed to make the "right" choices-an idea the food industry uses to justify the argument that obfuscating the information on food labels serves some undefined public good. It's also about what happens to our food when industry attempts to achieve economies of scale to meet our expectations that a bag of organic lettuce mix should cost the same as a Yoo-hoo and carry almost as long a shelf life-not to mention our willingness to believe that everything edible constitutes food.

It's also a story about nomenclature. At some undetectable moment in recent history, modern food parlance parted ways with common standards of forthrightness and left us in an up-is-down world where food manufacturers may soon be able to subject food to ionizing radiation and call it "cold pasteurization," where "chocolate" may not have to actually contain cocoa and almonds labeled "raw" must be sprayed with a suspected human carcinogen.

In this world, makers of an artificial bovine hormone to increase milk production have used their leverage with regulators to bully dairies that don't use the hormone into cowering away from disclosing on their labels why consumers might want to avoid it. In this world, it is easier and more cost effective to unleash a mix of genetically modified viruses on lunchmeat for children's sandwiches rather than clean up filthy slaughterhouses. In this world, it is increasingly challenging for consumers desiring to make healthier choices to know which way to turn. (See "What you can do" boxes for some guidance.)

"Raw" almonds aren't, really

The U.S. Department of Agriculture recently required that all almonds produced in the United States be pasteurized, including nuts labeled "raw." The rule went into effect Sept. 1, despite protests from health-conscious consumers who prefer unprocessed nuts and small-scale growers who can't afford the equipment, which costs between $500,000 and $2.5 million.

The move follows two Salmonella outbreaks attributed to raw almonds in 2001 and 2004. Critics of the rule point out that both incidents were the result of faulty practices at large-scale commercial farms. Small-scale and sustainable practices-including mowing and mulching to control weeds, instead of using chemical herbicides-naturally prevent the spread of harmful bacteria more effectively than post-harvest treatment, they say.


The Cornucopia Institute, a Wisconsin-based farm policy research group leading a campaign to convince the USDA to overturn the pasteurization rule, contends that labeling treated almonds as "raw" is deceptive. More than that, the group argues that it epitomizes the industrialization of our food supply.

"This is just the opening salvo of corporate agribusiness wanting to sanitize all of our food," says Mark Kastel, co-founder of the Cornucopia Institute. The impetus, Kastel says, is the economics of large-scale production. In many cases, such operations utilize growing and cultivation methods that provide much greater opportunity for contamination.

To comply with the regulation, almond producers can either steam the nuts or fumigate them with propylene oxide (PPO), the almond board's preferred process. PPO is recognized as a possible human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Mexico-and much of the rest of the world.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration does not require labeling of foods treated with the fumigant, and while packages of almonds may contain the disclaimer "pasteurized," there isn't likely to be any indication by which process the nuts were treated.

The only way consumers will be able to distinguish how their "raw" almonds were pasteurized is by the organic label. Regulations mandate that foods bearing the "organic" seal cannot be treated with PPO. The forces against organic: profit and politics

Examples of the regulated controlling the regulators-like almond producers writing their own rules-are rampant up and down the American food chain.

The USDA recently announced that 38 non-organic ingredients will be allowed in "organic" food. Reading the labels, consumers will be none the wiser. But the new rule is actually an improvement over previous ambiguity, as now manufacturers will be limited to using the ingredients that NOP has determined are "commercially unavailable."

Since the inception of the federal labeling program, foods labeled "USDA Organic" have been able to contain up to 5 percent non-organic ingredients. That 5 percent comprises ingredients not available in an organic form. The recent action was an effort to codify exactly which ingredients can be substituted with conventional versions in products that bear the seal, and the result will likely be fewer non-organic ingredients in "organic" food. Please whatever you do read everything front and back as though your life depends on it!

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

World cancer experts have finally declared what NewsTarget readers learned nearly four years ago: That processed meats cause cancer, and anyone seeking to avoid cancer should avoid eating all processed meats for life.

Hundreds of cancer researchers took part in a five-year project spanning more than 7,000 clinical studies and designed to document the links between diet and cancer. Their conclusion, published in the World Cancer Research Fund's report, Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective (2007), has rocked the health world with a declaration that all people should immediately stop buying and eating processed meat products and that all processed meat should be avoided for life!

Processed meats, the report explains, are simply too dangerous for human consumption. And why? Because they contain chemical additives that are known to greatly increase the risk of various cancers, including colorectal cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, brain tumors, pancreatic cancer and many more. The report, published at this DietAndCancerReport.org website also recommends that consumers:

* Avoid all sugary soft drinks for life. * Exercise at least 30 minutes a day. * Get lean and fit, without becoming underweight. * Limit consumption of ALL meats (even fresh meat). * Breastfeed all infants for their first six months, avoiding infant formula.

Sadly, the WCRF still does not recommend that consumers use nutritional supplements to help protect themselves from cancer, indicating that the group still has a lot to learn about the role of medicinal mushrooms, sea vegetables, microalgae, Chinese herbs, rainforest herbs and superfood extracts in preventing and reversing cancer. But at least the group's recommendation that consumers now avoid all processed meat products is a huge step in the right direction. It is the first time that any internationally-recognized cancer organization has found the courage to make a partial proclaimation about the health hazards of the chemicals found in processed meat products. It's almost as big a deal as when the American Medical Association, after years of taking millions of dollars from tobacco companies, finally admitted that smoking causes lung cancer and heart disease. (A decade after the scientific evidence was irrefutable, of course, but then again, the AMA was making money off Big Tobacco by running tobacco ads in JAMA...)

What is the difference between processed and fresh meat?

Here's what it is:

Fresh meat usually has only one ingredient: The meat! Fresh meat is refrigerated and has a very short shelf life (just a few days, usually). It's usually packaged in simple wrappers, with no fancy logos or color printing.

Processed meat has many ingredients and is usually packaged for long-term shelf life. These products almost always contain sodium nitrite, the cancer-causing chemical additive that meat companies use as a color fixer to turn their meat products a bright red "fresh-looking" color. Processed meat products include:

* Bacon * Sausage * Pepperoni * Beef jerky * Deli slices * Hot dogs * Sandwich meat (including those served at restaurants) * Ham * Meat "gift" products like Christmas sausages * Meat used in canned soups * Meat used in frozen pizza * Meat used in kid's lunch products * Meat used in ravioli, spaghetti or Italian pasta products

... and many more meat products.

Unless it says "NITRITE FREE" on the front label, you can bet it's made with cancer-causing sodium nitrite!

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™

As one of the busiest of all times for food professionals, the holiday season will make us work hard to put our best spatula forward.

And to keep our competitive edge, we depend on the freshest and healthiest ingredients available to keep our guests coming back for seconds.

But the U.S. National Organic Standards Board recently convened in Washington to consider amending U.S. organic standards to include farmed fish such as salmon and cod. And this proposal, driven by special interests, is not only hard for us to stomach but it's also leaving a bad taste in the mouths of many of our fellow food professionals around America as well.

When the board makes its final decision, perhaps within a couple of months, it should consider the view from within the kitchen.

Wearing the right hat doesn't make you a chef. It takes years of training and education to master the skills and meet the standards expected at a major restaurant today. In the same way, just changing the rules so that farmed salmon and other carnivorous finfish can be labeled organic won't make that fish any healthier for you or better for the environment.

The word "organic" often evokes images of a food that is natural, healthy, wholesome and clean -- a product that is good for you, your family and the environment. Yet, the process of industrial salmon aquaculture, is in reality, anything but.

Unlike their wild cousins, farmed salmon spend most of their adult life in floating net pens with thousands of other fish. In the same waters year round, these large aquaculture facilities upset the delicate balance of nature.

Remember...Grace is upon you so eat to live!™