Koch is bringing these ideas to a wider, more mainstream audience, something that’s bound to be good for us all. Clean Plates’ approach, through Koch’s concept of “bio-individuality,” shows that eating healthier can be an easy, pleasurable, and sacrifice-free adventure. We recently talked with Koch about what inspired him to help everyday folks live more conscious, healthier lifestyles

What has the reaction been to including extensive nutrition information in the front of a restaurant guide?

You’d think that people wouldn’t want nutritional information at the start of a restaurant guide, right? But the reality is that nearly everyone we spoke to loved it and wanted more of it. It was important to us to keep it friendly and easy to follow—no dogma or preaching—we want it to be simple for anyone to eat healthier, whether at a restaurant or at home.

Tell us more about the Clean Plates philosophy and your concept of “bio-individuality.”

Clean Plates is about eating healthfully as well as deliciously. We believe that food tastes best when it has a lot of nutrients, is sustainably produced, and is lovingly and artfully prepared. The quality of ingredients is what matters most, whether you’re a carnivore, a vegan, or somewhere in between.

The idea of “bio-individuality” is based on the idea that every body is different, which means there’s more than one right way to eat. Embracing healthy eating means finding the way of eating that makes your body thrive. We’re all different: we have different genetic makeups, our cultures and backgrounds are different, we have different lifestyles, and we’re at different places in our lives. We also live in different climates and have various levels of day-to-day physical health.

So the philosophy is that there is no single way of eating that is right for everyone. It’s not new, but I’ve come to this approach based on my own experiments on my clients and myself. I healed myself from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) through experimenting with different diets, from raw to vegan, vegetarian, gluten-free, dairy- and sugar-free. Over time, I was able to figure out for myself what worked best, for my individual factors. In my case, it turned out there was no one diet, but a combination.

The factors started to click for me and then, studies came out to back up some of my own experiences. For example, one study shows that some individuals metabolize caffeine from coffee differently than others. Another study shows that some people take up the phytochemical compounds in broccoli better than others. I realized that each of us has unique factors that make any certain “diet” really not appropriate for others.

My overall big picture advice to mostly all my clients is to reduce animal foods. That, and eating more organic produce and eliminating most canned foods is pretty critical. But, I look at the overall picture of a person’s health and I know that being dogmatic about eating is really doing a disservice to the overall mission.

There seems to be a lot of conflicting nutrition advice out there and general confusion about what to eat. How do you help clients navigate these waters?

Nutrition science is a new science and a lot of it is inconclusive at the end of the day. There is a lot of conflicting information about whether we should eat meat, gluten, and dairy—the jury’s out on a lot of this. My job is to give people the lay of the land to help them make informed choices and decisions.

Relatively speaking, a “healthy” food can make some people sick; we see this with celiac disease or lactose intolerance. Ultimately, as a society, we have an incredibly dysfunctional relationship to food: We are confused about what to eat, we feel bad and guilty about what we eat, and we’re stressed out about food. Stress about food is also harmful to the body. I want to help people heal their relationships with food.

I also try to get people to the point of being more connected to the food they eat, to help them make decisions that are aligned with their values. I know if I eat better, I’m going to feel better. It’s neither perfect nor extreme—I explain this with my 80/20 rule: aim to eat really healthfully 80 percent of the time so if you indulge in habits that may not be as healthy the other 20 percent of the time, your body will have the nutrients to better deal with it. The end goal of life is not to have a perfect diet, but to eat well and to serve a greater purpose while we’re here.

How have you seen consciousness change about our food choices?

People are starting to realize that the food we put into our bodies matters for personal health, for the environment, and for social justice. I believe that the biggest impetus for change around food will be economic. When it hits home in our pocketbooks due to rising healthcare costs is when the real change will happen. To stay out of the doctor’s office, we’ll all need to start eating healthier. I meet more people who are realizing that, and improving their diets, every day.

What do you tell people who don’t have easy access to the ingredients and ideas in the books?

There are more Whole Foods markets and more farmers’ markets growing in areas across the nation every day. We’re making progress, and I tell people to just try to make the best decisions with what they have. Ideally, I would advise people to eat local, organic food, but if you can’t get organic, just make sure you’re eating vegetables.

What’s next for Clean Plates?

Our main focus is expanding our free e-mail newsletter (sign up here). We’re working on answering all your big food questions, from which fats can actually help keep you slim, to what’s a great recipe for dinner. We want to be your nutrition coach in your inbox.

* * *

The new Clean Plates cookbook includes loads of healthful recipes from some of both coasts’ finest establishments, including Pure Food & Wine’s raw pad Thai (recipe included below), Northern Spy’s kale salad, and Bill Telepan’s broccoli pasta salad. If you can’t get to the restaurants to eat these delicious and nutritious dishes, learn how to make them yourself!

Recipe reprinted with permission from THE CLEAN PLATES COOKBOOK © 2012 by Jared Koch with Jill Silverman Hough, Running Press, a member of the Perseus Books Group.

Raw Pad Thai

Since opening in Manhattan in 2004, Pure Food and Wine has become one of the country’s most acclaimed restaurants and continues to revolutionize the world of raw food. Of its entirely plant-based vegan menu, nothing is heated above 118°F, to preserve valuable vitamins, minerals, and enzymes. Co-owner and executive chef Sarma Melngailis shares her kelp noodle pad thai recipe, which proves that raw cuisine can be delicious, inspiring, and much more than just salads.

SERVES 4 TO 6

2 limes
1 (11⁄2 inch/4 cm) square tamarind pulp (see notes)
1⁄2 medium-size tomato, chopped coarsely
1⁄2 small shallot, quartered
2 tablespoons toasted sesame oil
11⁄2 teaspoons raw agave nectar
1⁄4 Thai chile, seeded, or more to taste (see notes)
1⁄2 garlic clove
6 tablespoons/90 mL organic naturally brewed soy sauce or organic wheat-free tamari, divided
1 medium-size orange bell pepper, cored and cut into matchsticks
1 medium-size baby bok choy, cut crosswise into 1⁄4-inch/0.65 cm shreds
1 medium-size carrot, cut into matchsticks
1 large king oyster mushroom, cut into 1⁄4-inch/0.65 cm slices
1 cup/90 g snow peas, cut into 1⁄2-inch/1.25 cm pieces
1 medium-size zucchini, cut into matchsticks
3 scallions, sliced thinly
1 tablespoon organic extra-virgin olive oil
2 (12-ounce/340 g) packages kelp noodles, chopped into 4-inch/10 cm pieces (see notes)
Bean sprouts, for garnish
Microgreens, for garnish
Chopped raw cashews, for garnish

Cut one of the limes into wedges. Juice the remaining lime to yield 41/2 teaspoons of juice.

Set the wedges and juice aside separately.

In a small bowl, combine the tamarind pulp with 1⁄2 cup/120mL of very hot water. Use a fork to work the mixture into a paste, removing any seeds. Set aside and let soak for 15 minutes.

In the jar of a blender, combine the tomato, shallot, sesame oil, agave, chile, garlic, 2 tablespoons

of the soy sauce, and 11⁄2 teaspoons of the lime juice and process to a puree. Add the tamarind mixture and process until very smooth. Add more chile to taste and set aside.

In a large bowl, combine the bell pepper, bok choy, carrot, mushroom, snow peas, zucchini, and scallions. Add the olive oil, remaining 1/4 cup/60 mL of soy sauce, remaining 1 tablespoon of lime juice, and 2 tablespoons of the pureed sauce, stirring to evenly coat. Chill in the refrigerator for at least an hour.

Add the noodles to the vegetable mixture. Add more sauce to taste, tossing with tongs to evenly distribute the sauce.

Serve garnished with bean sprouts, microgreens, cashews, and lime wedges.

Notes:
Tamarind pulp can be found in Asian, Latin, and Indian markets and at some natural foods supermarkets. Look for it packaged in blocks wrapped in cellophane.

Thai chiles can be found in Asian markets.

Kelp noodles can be found in the Asian section or the refrigerated produce section of most natural foods supermarkets.

Sign up for Clean Plates today and get a recipe for a clean burger (vegetarian and carnivore), fries, and shake!

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” is a highly controversial process for extracting oil and gas that has raised serious environmental and public health concerns across the country. Unknown to most, fracking has been happening in California, the nation’s leading farm state, for several decades without clear regulatory oversight. Now, the next generation of fracking—involving more chemicals injected at higher pressure and creating more pollution and risk—has come to California. Some of the biggest oil and gas companies are quickly buying up water and oil rights, with over 17,000 acres of oil leases on California public land auctioned off by federal land managers at the end of 2012.

Eyes are on the Monterey Shale, a 1,750-square-mile area believed to hold as much as 15 billion barrels of crude oil, which sits beneath some of the state’s most prized farmland. The stakes are high: the oil industry estimates that developing the Monterey Shale could add nearly three million jobs and close to $25 billion in tax revenues by 2020. But at what cost? California citizens are concerned about fracking’s potential impacts: air, water and land pollution, plummeting property values, and depletion of the state’s already scarce water resources.

In Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Ohio, grazing animals have gotten sick and died after drinking fracking runoff and water from farm wells near fracking operations. California’s 81,000 farms produce an annual $43 billion in crops that feed not only our state, but also the nation and the world. What will happen to the food supply if our farmland is fracked?

Date: Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Time: 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM
Location: Port Commission Hearing Room, Ferry Building, 2nd Floor at The Embarcadero at Market Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Price: $5 donation requested at door
RSVP: Please register in advance because space is limited

Panelists:

Zeke Grader, Executive Director of the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources
Jim Leap, organic farmer, former farm manager at the U.C. Santa Cruz Center for Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, and member of Aromas Cares for the Environment
Mark Nechodom, Director of California’s Department of Conservation
Kassie Siegel, Climate Law Institute Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Moderator: freelance journalist Twilight Greenaway, former food editor at Grist.org

Please join us after the panel for a reception and resource fair. Enjoy farmers market refreshments sponsored by CUESA and Bi-Rite Market, and connect with organizations working to educate the public about the risks associated with fracking.

Kitchen Table Talks is a joint venture of Civil Eats and 18 Reasons, a non-profit building a healthy community of cooks, gardeners and eaters of all ages empowered to create social change through food. Space is limited, so please RSVP ($5 requested donation). Seasonal snacks and refreshments generously provided by Bi-Rite Market and CUESA.

Register Now!

Photo Credit: RL Miller

After having written six books, many about the intersection between food production and nature, what led you to write a book about cooking?

I never planned to write a book about cooking. It was really just what I realized was going on after Omnivore’s Dilemma, which was about the earth end of the food chain. Then after two books about health–the body end of the food chain–I came to understand that the seemingly obvious link, the one in which we transform plants and animals into food, was perhaps the most important. This was a truth hidden in plain sight, to me at least. What we cook has an enormous bearing on the kind of agriculture we have. And on the other end the best predictor of a healthy diet is not a nutrient or a particular food, but an activity–cooking–and specifically, who is cooking your food, is it a corporation or a human being? That is a key predictor of the healthfulness of your diet and the likelihood of whether you are struggling with obesity or chronic disease.

Americans are spending less and less time cooking. What do you think needs to happen to get us cooking again?

Part of it is trying to change cultural norms, which is why we tell stories like the stories I tell in this book–hopefully to get people excited about cooking and make them realize that this is a pleasure they are being robbed of, rather than t a drudgery they want to outsource. Another thing is that we have a crisis in skills. There is now a generation whose parents did not cook, and they don’t have a clue what to do. So we really have to look at teaching cooking skills in schools again, bringing back a kind of non-gendered updated home-ec, making cooking classes available to everybody who wants to learn, and I really do think that the kinds of cooking programming on TV is not encouraging people at all, it is having the opposite effect. It makes cooking look heroic, competitive, scary, dangerous–everything but approachable.

One of the stories that you tell in the book involves a visit to a Wonder Bread plant where they churn out 155,000 loaves per day, and then you visit Dave Miller, an artisan baker who mills his own grains and bakes 400, 100-percent whole grain loaves per week to sell at the farmers’ market. Looking at that model, is Dave the past or the future?

Well, look who is still in business: Dave Miller is, and Wonder Bread is not. [Editor: Hostess, the maker of Wonder Bread, went out of business in November 2012.] Dave Miller was selling his bread for 45 cents more per loaf–a loaf that was heavier by the way, more food by weight, and dramatically more nutritious and delicious. The Wonder Bread–I don’t even know if we should call it bread. We used to have rules for what you could call bread. It had to be made with wheat flour, water, salt, and yeast, and anything else was not allowed to use the word “bread.”

But we’ve loosened up the rules and those Wonder Breads that I was writing about have 30 or 40 different ingredients. I bought a loaf of Wonder Bread the day that the company closed. I figured it would soon go bad and I’d throw it out and just save the plastic bag. But today it is still soft. How do they do that? A product which simulates bread with lots of sugars, lots of chemicals, a huge amount of yeast to do quickly what nature takes several hours to do, and which only nourishes to the extent that we can supplement it with lots of vitamins–I don’t see a future for that model. I don’t know that we are all going to go back completely to artisanal baking and I don’t know that we’re all going to go back to home baking even in big numbers, but real bread from actual bakeries, that market is growing and we’re having a renaissance of good bread in this country, and it is one of the more encouraging developments.

We really loved the section in the book on fermentation. You describe how microbiologists have discovered that nine of every 10 cells in our bodies belong not to us, but to these microbial species mostly in our gut, and that 99 percent of the DNA we’re carrying belong to those microbes. What does that tell us about ourselves, and can you talk a little bit about what you discovered in your reporting?

You are only ten percent human, no matter what you may think; we really are a superorganism. We’re like a coral reef with a brain. And our health really depends, as that paper I quoted was saying, health is a property of the human microbiome community. It is a community property, not an individual property. And that is a whole new way of thinking about health and medicine that requires us to take their interests into account.  That was kind of the big surprise for me; that learning about this fermentation that takes place outside, whether in a loaf of bread or a crock of kimchee, shed a lot of light on the fermentation that takes place inside, and that one was such a good food for the other. There is research that suggests that not just the microbes that you get from fermented foods but the lactic acids and the fiber that is still there are just kind of optimal foods to feed the internal fermentation. It’s an argument for what we knew in a way, which is to say a diversified plant diet. We know how to feed this part of the body, we’ve just kind of forgotten with processed foods.

You studied under cheesemakers, beer brewers, bread makers, and others–all somewhat complicated processes that are often pursued by artisans as their livelihood. Which of these things have really stuck with you and continue to be a part of your cooking routine? 

I’ve been surprised that I do still do all three of those things, not as often or as obsessively, when Isaac [Ed.: the author’s son] is home from college, we will often brew beer. Baking bread is something I do more often. My starter is still alive and well, and once or twice a month I’ll make some bread. I find that process to be incredibly satisfying and therapeutic. When you are in the middle of writing, it’s just the right kind of rhythm, you have to get up every 45 minutes and go downstairs and have this sensory experience of turning your dough and smelling it, tasting it, seeing how it feels and if it’s ready. And I’m so convinced of the value of eating [fermented foods] that I usually have a crock of kimchee going, and I try to have a spoonful or forkful at lunch. I’m doing more of those so-called extreme cooking adventures, which turn out not to be so extreme once you have the skills.

Why make these things from scratch, if, especially in the Bay Area, it’s easy to get excellent bread or beer? 

That’s a good question. There are people doing a better job than I’m doing. The reason is that it really feels good to do something for yourself. We are overspecialized, specialization is one of the diseases of modern civilization. It’s wonderful in the sense that it allows me to make a living writing, and it allows others to make a living doing other things. But it is infantilizing. It breeds dependence. It is incredibly satisfying to learn that you can do something that you thought you had to pay someone else to do.

And that goes for doing household repairs, fixing your car, and all that kind of stuff. But we outsource everything. Cooking is one of the easiest of these services to insource. It’s not that hard to learn, it’s not that expensive to do–in fact you save money. I think we need to defend a space around us and our families from the infiltration of commercialism and commercial interests. I really do think that corporations find markets by finding new things to do for us. And one way to push back is to brew your own beer once in awhile and make a good bread. The other thing it does for you of course is it makes your appreciation for the artisans in your community that much more keen. When you make it yourself it just has so much more meaning in it, so much more soul.

We’ve seen major food policy organizations like the Community Food Security Coalition, Organic Farming Research Foundation, Food & Society Fellows, Slow Food and others shut their doors or experienced setbacks in 2012. Where do you think the food movement is right now in terms of effectiveness? What do you think is needed to bring the movement to the next level of public and political awareness?

I think the movement is a big, messy movement. It is not like the movement for gay rights–it doesn’t have a single, clear objective. And I think this is both a strength and very often a weakness. Many of the people operating under that umbrella of the food movement are really looking for very different things, some with more success than others. So it has always been a little artificial to say its a movement, in the conventional sense that everyone is kind of rowing in the same direction. And some run into real headwinds and have made real progress. I think that the animal rights people have had one of the better records of success. And there are labor issues, too–and the Coalition of Immokolee Workers has had some victories.

I don’t think that people should be overly discouraged by the fact that there is going to be some creative destruction along the way. I think there was a lot of hope around the Obama Administration that has been disappointed, and maybe that hope was misplaced to begin with, but this was clearly not an industry that this administration was ready to tackle in any dramatic way. If you look back in the last four or five years, there have been some concrete victories, they’ve tended to be less legislative, although there have been a few of those, too, but the big work has been going on in the cultural sphere. Which is to say, greater and greater consciousness of these issues, it is much more front-of-mind for a lot of people.

But it’s a very young movement and its going to take a long time. If you look at the environmental movement, it took generations before we got to Earth Day. We’re nowhere near Earth Day with the food movement. But you have to really go back to the writers and thinkers of the 19th Century who put the environment–even though that word didn’t exist–onto the national agenda. I’m not discouraged, it’s going to be two steps forward, one step back for a long time.

In the latest investigation by the Food & Environment Reporting Network (FERN), reporter Bridget Huber examines first lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity campaign and the political realities of taking on the multibillion-dollar food industry. The story, “Michelle’s Moves,” appears online at The Nation and FERN.

Huber details how, starting in March 2010, Mrs. Obama—the enormously popular mother in chief, who had surprised and impressed many when she chose to make the contentious issue of childhood obesity a focus of her White House tenure—leveled a challenge at the food industry’s biggest players, asking them to “step up,” a month after she launched the Let’s Move campaign, the Obama administration’s flagship anti-obesity program, aimed at reversing the childhood obesity epidemic by 2030.

“But three and a half years since the ground was broken on the White House garden, many of those who’d had high hopes say the first lady has logged only modest successes,” Huber reports. “Experts credit Mrs. Obama for her instrumental role in reforming school lunches, limiting TV watching and increasing healthy food at childcare centers—and, perhaps most important, using her bully pulpit to bring issues of food and nutrition to national attention. But, they say, reversing the childhood obesity epidemic in a generation requires more of the bold action that Mrs. Obama hinted at.”

Huber examines whether the administration’s strategy appears to have shifted and forged controversial—some say compromising—partnerships with food manufacturers, writing: “Observers put the blame less on a lack of goodwill than on the political realities of taking on the multibillion-dollar food industry, which has lots of lobbying money and friends in Congress and no qualms about fanning the fears of government overreach when it perceives a threat to its interests…. It also raises fundamental questions about whether the goals of public health and those of the food industry are at irreconcilable odds. Should those who seek to address the obesity crisis treat food companies as collaborators or as adversaries?”

She speaks to food policy and obesity experts, including Marion Nestle, professor of nutrition, public health and food studies at New York University; Kelly Brownell, director of the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University; and Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), all of whom have tracked Mrs. Obama’s efforts, including those to reform school lunch. The story also takes a hard look at the first lady’s controversial alliance with Walmart and its efforts to cut prices on healthy foods, reduce the sodium and sugar in packaged foods, and open stores in “food deserts”—neighborhoods lacking fresh grocery retailers.

The story highlights the particularly contentious politics of restricting junk-food advertising to kids, which the Institute of Medicine says contributes to obesity, and investigates the nature of setting industry standards—which set off a lobbying and spending frenzy that Huber reports convinced nearly a third of the Senate and 40 percent of the House to write letters to federal agencies criticizing the proposed rules—and the efficacy of public-private partnerships with the food industry.

“The trajectory of Let’s Move has left many of those initially optimistic about the program feeling doubtful that it will accomplish much more: the best of intentions appear to be mired in the unhappy realities of American politics,” Huber writes, noting Mrs. Obama’s leadership and persuasion has helped bring the issue to the forefront. She concludes, “But her sole authority is moral authority. While she’s brought tremendous attention to obesity and healthy living, she doesn’t have the power to make the regulatory changes that public health experts say are key.”

The Just Label It (JLI) Campaign announced today that a record-breaking one million Americans of all political persuasions have called on the FDA to label genetically engineered (GE) foods. Today, March 27, is the date that the FDA is required to respond to the petition. It took JLI and its more than 500 partner organizations less than 180 days to accumulate an historic number of public comments—a testament to the power of collective voices to demand our right to know what’s in our food. (I’ve written about the campaign before here, here, and here.)

The campaign also announced today a new national survey revealing that more than nine out of 10 Americans across the political spectrum supports labeling food that has been genetically engineered. This new infographic is a compelling visual that shares the results of the survey.

New Survey Results: Motherhood, Apple Pie and GE Food Labeling

Voter support for GE-foods labeling in the U.S. is nearly unanimous, according to the political opinion survey on GE food labeling conducted by The Mellman Group on behalf of JLI. Explained pollster Mark Mellman, “Few topics other than motherhood and apple pie can muster over 90 percent support, but labeling GE-foods is one of those few views held almost unanimously.” The survey found nearly all Democrats (93% favor, 2% oppose), Independents (90% favor, 5% oppose) and Republicans (89% favor, 5% oppose) in favor of labeling. The study also revealed that support for labeling is robust and arguments against it have little sway.

In the era of pink slime, BPA in our soup and deadly melons, we have a right more than ever to know about what’s in our food. The FDA needs to restore confidence in our food and our right to know about the food we eat and feed our families. It’s time for the FDA to give Americans the same rights held by citizens in over 40 nations, including all of our major trade partners, to know whether our foods have been genetically modified.

Stay tuned as the campaign now works to make sure that the FDA and Washington knows that one million Americans are watching to make sure they deliver.

The most comprehensive assessment so far to date, the report also reveals that agriculture is the main source of 96 percent of nitrate pollution. The five counties in the study area–among the top 10 agricultural producing counties in the United States–include about 40 percent of California’s irrigated cropland and more than half of its dairy herds, representing a $13.7 billion slice of the state’s economy, Holbrook reports.

“Nearly 10 percent of the 2.6 million people living in the Tulare Lake Basin and Salinas Valley might be drinking nitrate-contaminated water, researchers found. If nothing is done to stem the problem, the report warns, those at risk for health and financial problems may number nearly 80 percent by 2050,” writes Holbrook.

High nitrate levels in drinking water have been linked to thyroid cancer, skin rashes, hair loss, birth defects and “blue baby syndrome,” a potentially fatal blood disorder in infants.

Holbrook explains that nitrates are odorless, tasteless compounds that form when nitrogen from ammonia and other sources mix with water. While nitrogen and nitrates occur naturally, the advent of synthetic fertilizer has coincided with a dramatic increase in nitrates in drinking water. He notes that rural residents are at greater risk because they depend on private wells, which are often shallower and not monitored to the same degree as public water sources, writing, “Current contamination likely came from nitrates introduced into the soil decades ago. That means even if nitrates were dramatically reduced today, groundwater would still suffer for decades to come.”

According to the report, removing nitrates from large groundwater basins is extremely costly and not technically feasible. One relatively low-cost alternative is called “pump and fertilize” pulling nitrate-saturated water out of the ground and applying it to crops at the right time to ensure more complete nitrate uptake.

The report lists a few solutions to help pay for the cleanup of contaminated water, including a fee on fertilizer sales and greater “mill fees” on the production of fertilizer, Holbrook notes, explaining that in California, farmers do not pay sales tax on fertilizer, while water districts and communities bear the cost of cleaning up tainted wells.

The timing of the report is important, notes Holbrook, because the Central Coast water board, one of several regional water agencies that enforce the state’s Clean Water Act, will hold a highly anticipated meeting tomorrow, March 14, to decide on new agricultural regulations aimed at reducing the release of nitrates, pesticides and other chemicals into aquifers, as well as creeks, rivers, lakes and the Pacific Ocean.

You can read the full report here. You can read the previous reporting by the Food & Environment Reporting Network here.

We know we’ve struck a chord with the Just Label It campaign, as Americans are responding in record-breaking numbers. As of today, more than 900,000 people have submitted comments to the FDA in favor of labeling genetically engineered (GE) foods. (I’ve written about the campaign before here and here.) But this campaign has always been about more than just the numbers. It’s about spreading the word about our right to have GE foods labeled.

We’re excited to now introduce this new infographic, which visually explains why the FDA should Just Label It. Designed to clearly show the need for labeling of GE foods, this educational tool includes a link to the Just Label It website where consumers can submit a comment to the FDA. Convenient for sharing on-line and via social media, the infographic is being distributed nationally by Just Label It’s 500 diverse partner organizations.

Whether it’s salmon genetically engineered to grow at twice its natural rate or herbicide-resistant corn that encourages the use of more chemicals in our food supply, we have a right to know what’s in our food.

Already, more than 40 countries–including China and Russia–require labels on genetically engineered food. As Americans, we deserve the same opportunity to make informed decisions about what we eat.

As more Americans know about GE foods, more pressure will build on the FDA to label them. This new infographic will help do just that and it’s easy to share with friends and family, so everyone can be afforded the right to make informed decisions about the food they eat as well. So please help share this cool new tool online, on Twitter, and Facebook. Together, we’ll continue to raise awareness and make our collected voices heard!

Originally published by Just Label It

The Just Label It campaign today launched a new video by Food, Inc. filmmaker Robert Kenner that empowers consumers to fight for their right to know what is in their food. The video, “Labels Matter,” is the result of collaboration between the Just Label It campaign and Kenner’s new project, FixFood, a social media platform that aims to empower Americans to take immediate action to create a more sustainable and democratic food system.

To date, more than 450 consumer, healthcare, environmental and farming organizations, manufacturers, retailers have joined the Just Label It campaign, which has generated more than 500,000 consumer comments calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to label GE foods.  (We wrote about the launch of Just Label It here.) The video seeks to garner more consumer awareness and participation by galvanizing one million consumers to comment to the FDA by mid-April, the date that the FDA’s public comment period ends.

“Labels Matter” tells the story of three women who share a belief in the right to know, but for entirely different reasons. Heather Donatini is a pregnant woman who knows she is feeding her developing baby, as well as herself, with every bite. Luann Clark recently had heart surgery and has to closely monitor what she eats. Robyn O’Brien is a mother whose child developed an allergic reaction to breakfast. “As a mother of children with food allergies, the labeling of GE foods is especially important, as it would provide essential and possibly life-saving information for the food allergic population,” said O’Brien, founder, Allergy Kids Foundation. (We’ve written about Robyn’s important work here and here.)

As the video connects with each woman, Kenner shows how the U.S. compares to other developed nations, including the European Union, Japan, Australia, Brazil, Russia, and even China, where genetically engineered (GE) foods are labeled. The video notes that the vast majority of Americans (90 percent in most studies) believe GE foods should be labeled.

Gary Hirshberg, Chairman of Stonyfield and a founder of Just Label It, collaborated with Kenner to produce the video. “While the pros and cons of GE foods is debated, an entire generation is growing up consuming them,” he said. “Until we have no doubt that GE crops are safe to eat, consumers should have a choice about whether we want to eat them. GE foods must be labeled. Consumers need to know.” Hirshberg recently published “Label It Now,” the first consumer guide to GE foods available at online booksellers. All proceeds of the e-book go to the Just Label It campaign.

The drumbeat for mandatory GE labeling is getting louder, as the FDA decides whether to approve GE salmon and a proposal advances at the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate corn engineered to be resistant to the herbicide 2,4-D, a major component in Agent Orange. You can join in asking the FDA to allow consumers the right to know what’s in their food.

Today, a broadbased coalition of nearly 400 businesses and organizations dedicated to food safety and consumer rights called on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, to give consumers the right to know what is in our food. The Just Label It – We Have a Right to Know campaign submitted a petition on behalf of millions of consumers to the FDA calling for the mandatory labeling of GE foods, also referred to as genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. These are foods that are altered at the molecular level in ways that could not happen naturally.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires the FDA to prevent consumer deception by clarifying that a food label is misleading if it omits significant, “material” information.  In 1992 however, the FDA issued a policy statement that defined “material” by the ability to be sensed by taste, smell, or other senses.  The FDA determined that GE Foods were “substantially equivalent” to conventionally produced foods, so there was no material difference and no labeling was required.  After almost 20 years, this policy is still in effect today.

For example, the FDA is currently deciding whether to deregulate GE salmon and make it commercially available. According to FDA, a salmon that is genetically engineered is not materially different from a non-GE salmon because it does not taste, smell or feel different. Without a label to tell us differently, when eating GE salmon, the public will not know if what they are consuming has been genetically altered.

“We are asking the FDA to change a decade’s old and out of touch policy,” said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety and lead author of the petition. “Today’s consumers are more informed than ever, and they have a right to know about the foods they are purchasing and consuming. We want the FDA to require labeling on foods intentionally produced using genetic engineering.”

“Polls show that consumers demand transparency in the foods they buy and overwhelmingly support labeling of GE food,” said Dr. Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, the public policy division of Consumer Reports. “In order to make informed decisions, the public deserves a truthful marketplace.”

Ninety-five percent of consumers believe GE foods should be labeled according to a poll [PDF] conducted by Consumers Union and 93 percent of the American public want the federal government to require mandatory labeling of GE foods. Labeling is required in other countries, including the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Korea, Brazil, and China.

While nearly 90 percent of corn; 94 percent of soy; and 90 percent of cottonseed grown in the US are from GE seeds, the safety of GE crops for human consumption has not been adequately assured [PDF]. Several National Academy of Sciences studies have affirmed that GE crops have the potential to introduce new toxins or allergens into our food and environment.

Yet, unlike the strict safety evaluations for approval of new drugs, there are no mandatory human clinical trials of GE crops, no tests for carcinogenicity or harm to fetuses, no long term testing for human health risks, no requirement for long-term testing on animals, and limited testing for allergenicity, with some studies raising concerns that GE foods may pose an allergen risk.

“Scientists and consumers alike have many reasons for being concerned about the long-term health and environmental consequences of genetically engineered foods,” said Gary Hirshberg, CEO of Stonyfield Farm, a member of the coalition. “And the scientific debate about the benefits and risks of these crops will continue for a long time. Meanwhile an entire generation will have grown up consuming them.”

The best option to avoid GE foods is to buy USDA certified organic as the organic standards prohibit the use of GE ingredients; to look for Non-GMO Project Verified Non-GMO products; and to buy unprocessed foods such as fruits, vegetables, and avoid packaged food, much of which contains GE ingredients.

The campaign Web site, www.justlabelit.org, allows consumers an easy, one-click method to notify the FDA of their support for the petition and stay up to date on the initiative. It also offers education tools to get informed about GE foods, the benefits of labeling foods and ways to stay engaged through blogs, and social media. The campaign also launched a video that conveys the point of the initiative: Without labeling, families are being kept in the dark.

Fire Escape Farms, a new pop up shop in the heart of the Mission District in San Francisco, offers everything you need to transform your urban space into a flourishing farm. The brainchild of Naya Peterson, the store, located in Triple Base Gallery from June to August, offers City folks specially curated seeds, locally handcrafted wares made from recycled and sustainable materials, books and tools, as well as local, organic soil, and amendments.

Peterson, who was born in the Mission, and grew up in the City, moved to Napa a few years back to help open Ritual Roasters in the Oxbow market and worked at White Rock Vineyards. She loved getting her hands in the dirt and started gardening in her North Bay backyard, which was filled with fruit trees and wild mustard. She later fell in love with a City boy and moved back to the Mission two years ago, but hankered for a way to remain connected to growing.

“I was looking for a way to live in the City and do something I care about and believe in, something that inspires me,” Peterson said. “And I was dismayed that I lived in this sunny, food-centric neighborhood, but had to drive all over town to get gardening supplies.”

Recognizing that many people in the Mission were interested in starting an edible garden, but few have the resources or access to a vehicle to get supplies, Peterson set on the idea of bringing green goods to the hood. “People have come into the shop with crazy stories of how they transport huge bags of soil and gardening supplies home — on a bike,” she laughed. “I love helping people choose the right varietals for the amount of light they get as well as brainstorming what containers to plant them in that will make the most of small spaces.”

Peterson credits the Renaissance Entrepreneurship Center for providing support and structure, as well as a business plan. It took her about eight months to open; she shopped around for a good location and had the able design assistance of One Hat One Hand to build out the gallery space. All the while, she took horticulture classes at Merritt College and gardened in the light well and on the rooftop of her apartment. Her new home allows her to have container gardens and large raised beds, where she’s growing lettuces, beans, beets, carrots, radishes, peas, and tomatoes. “It’s a bit dangerous having access to over 120 seeds,” Peterson noted. She’s begun to bring extra greens into the shop to share.

Fire Escape Farms’ own brand of seeds are organic whenever possible and Peterson encourages saving heirloom seeds by getting many of hers from Seed Savers Exchange. Past August, she’s hoping the Web site will remain a resource to locals as she considers other locations for her next pop up, preferably in the Mission.

The gallery/pop up will also host an art opening for Rachel Weidinger upcoming exhibit, We Are Very Hungry, on Friday, July 1 (First Friday on 24th Street).

Photos: Daniel Dent

Originally published on Inside Scoop