Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: GMO foods don't need special label, American Medical Assn. says [View all]proverbialwisdom
(4,959 posts)149. Mother Jones:"Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop"
The parallels to the unfolding GMO story are evident.
http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/08/kids-cholestorol-trans-fat
Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop
By Tom Philpott| Tue Aug. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
"0 grams trans fats." That promise appears prominently on packaging for that classic American junk food, the Lay's Potato Chip. McDonald's iconic French fries? Trans-fat freeas are its Chicken McNuggets.
It wasn't always thus. As recently as 2006, journalist Nina Teicholz could report that consuming a large order of McDonald's fries and McNuggets in one sitting meant taking in nearly 10 grams of trans fats, a "substance considered so unhealthy that the National Academy of Sciences concluded, in 2002, that the only safe amount of trans fats in the diet is zero."
Trans fats are made through a process known as partial hydrogenationbasically, when you add hydrogen to ordinary vegetable oil, it becomes solid at room temperature, making it a cheap substitute for butter.
According to Teicholz, probably the journalist most responsible for exposing the ill effects of the once-ubiquitous, now-scarce substance, "A daily intake of five grams of trans fats increases the risk of contracting heart disease 4 percent to 28 percent."
<>
Teicholz reported trans-fat production was dominated by agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge. These companies ran a trade group called the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO), which "for decades" worked "behind the scenes to squelch bad news about trans fats." Teicholz reported:
As far back as 1968, the ISEO was mentioned in an internal memo written by the medical director of the American Heart Association: According to the memo, the ISEO objected to the AHAs intention to include a warning about trans fats in its dietary guidelines; subsequently, the AHA took it out.
And the food industry, too, actively sought to repress research showing trans fats' ill effects. According to Teicholz, independent-minded scientists examining the topic had to "deal with the tidal wave of industry pressure unleashed against them at meetings, conferences, and events. Their papers were rebutted with unusual ferocity, and their research funding was scarce." The pressures came from the industry's highest levels:
With independent science about its health effects virtually nil, trans fats took on a healthy sheen, promoted by a food industry that was happy to have found a cheap replacement for butter that also worked well in deep frying. By the '70s, "margarine manufacturers used the slogan 'Healthy for Your Heart' and marketed the product like a drug to doctors," Teicholz reported.
Meanwhile, damage to public health was severe. Teicholz cited Harvard epidemiologist Walter Willett, who reckoned that "of the half million Americans who die prematurely each year from heart diseasethe leading cause of death in this countryat least 30,000 are killed by trans fats."
The breaking point came in 2002, when a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences produced a scathing report on the effect of trans fats. Spurred by the NAS document, the FDA had little choice but to move on labeling, which it began to require in 2006. Then came bans on using trans fats in restaurants in New York City, Philadelphia, and California. The drop in trans fat consumption was swifta recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that trans-fat levels in the blood of white adults plunged by 58 percent between 2000 to 2009. (The fats the industry has seized upon to replace trans fats, palm oil and interesterificated vegetable oil, may present their own problems, both to health and the environment, but that is a topic for another post.)
Although a long time in coming, the melting away of trans fats in the American diet shows that progress can be madethat when independent science can cut through industry-induced fog, and when regulators are compelled to do their jobthe American diet can improve. But as the Journal of the American Medical Association article shows, things are still dire. Kids' cholesterol levels are coming down, the article notes, but obesity and overweight levels remain stubbornly high.
That unhappy fact, I think, stems from another practice the food industry picked up in the late '70sadding massive amounts of empty sweeteners to processed food. As the journalist Gary Taubes has shown, the food industry has largely managed to bury a growing body of research on the harms of that habit.
Recommended comment: birdmechanical @ 09:41 AM yesterday.
Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop
By Tom Philpott| Tue Aug. 21, 2012 3:00 AM PDT
"0 grams trans fats." That promise appears prominently on packaging for that classic American junk food, the Lay's Potato Chip. McDonald's iconic French fries? Trans-fat freeas are its Chicken McNuggets.
It wasn't always thus. As recently as 2006, journalist Nina Teicholz could report that consuming a large order of McDonald's fries and McNuggets in one sitting meant taking in nearly 10 grams of trans fats, a "substance considered so unhealthy that the National Academy of Sciences concluded, in 2002, that the only safe amount of trans fats in the diet is zero."
Trans fats are made through a process known as partial hydrogenationbasically, when you add hydrogen to ordinary vegetable oil, it becomes solid at room temperature, making it a cheap substitute for butter.
According to Teicholz, probably the journalist most responsible for exposing the ill effects of the once-ubiquitous, now-scarce substance, "A daily intake of five grams of trans fats increases the risk of contracting heart disease 4 percent to 28 percent."
<>
Teicholz reported trans-fat production was dominated by agribusiness giants Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland, and Bunge. These companies ran a trade group called the Institute of Shortening and Edible Oils (ISEO), which "for decades" worked "behind the scenes to squelch bad news about trans fats." Teicholz reported:
As far back as 1968, the ISEO was mentioned in an internal memo written by the medical director of the American Heart Association: According to the memo, the ISEO objected to the AHAs intention to include a warning about trans fats in its dietary guidelines; subsequently, the AHA took it out.
And the food industry, too, actively sought to repress research showing trans fats' ill effects. According to Teicholz, independent-minded scientists examining the topic had to "deal with the tidal wave of industry pressure unleashed against them at meetings, conferences, and events. Their papers were rebutted with unusual ferocity, and their research funding was scarce." The pressures came from the industry's highest levels:
Dr. Thomas Applewhite and Dr. J. Edward Hunter, industry scientists employed, respectively, by Kraft and Procter & Gamble (which held the original U.S. patent for trans fats), were the principal forces behind this criticism. Given that they worked for two food giants, the potential for bias was apparent, but their ability to fund research (as well as their own encyclopedic knowledge of the field) meant they could exercise considerable influence.
With independent science about its health effects virtually nil, trans fats took on a healthy sheen, promoted by a food industry that was happy to have found a cheap replacement for butter that also worked well in deep frying. By the '70s, "margarine manufacturers used the slogan 'Healthy for Your Heart' and marketed the product like a drug to doctors," Teicholz reported.
Meanwhile, damage to public health was severe. Teicholz cited Harvard epidemiologist Walter Willett, who reckoned that "of the half million Americans who die prematurely each year from heart diseasethe leading cause of death in this countryat least 30,000 are killed by trans fats."
The breaking point came in 2002, when a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences produced a scathing report on the effect of trans fats. Spurred by the NAS document, the FDA had little choice but to move on labeling, which it began to require in 2006. Then came bans on using trans fats in restaurants in New York City, Philadelphia, and California. The drop in trans fat consumption was swifta recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that trans-fat levels in the blood of white adults plunged by 58 percent between 2000 to 2009. (The fats the industry has seized upon to replace trans fats, palm oil and interesterificated vegetable oil, may present their own problems, both to health and the environment, but that is a topic for another post.)
Although a long time in coming, the melting away of trans fats in the American diet shows that progress can be madethat when independent science can cut through industry-induced fog, and when regulators are compelled to do their jobthe American diet can improve. But as the Journal of the American Medical Association article shows, things are still dire. Kids' cholesterol levels are coming down, the article notes, but obesity and overweight levels remain stubbornly high.
That unhappy fact, I think, stems from another practice the food industry picked up in the late '70sadding massive amounts of empty sweeteners to processed food. As the journalist Gary Taubes has shown, the food industry has largely managed to bury a growing body of research on the harms of that habit.
Recommended comment: birdmechanical @ 09:41 AM yesterday.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
196 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If big ag is so proud of their GMO creations why don't they label them as such and market them?
ag_dude
Jun 2012
#14
as many countries have. A chance in hell we can ban it here in US? Labeling is a compromise
Voice for Peace
Jul 2014
#169
The Indiana State Medical Association and the Illinois State Medical Society urge labeling (2012).
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#47
See genetically engineered bovine growth hormone fiasco, rBGH (breast/prostate cancer rates go up).
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#51
The American Academy Of Environmental Medicine Calls For Moratorium On GM Foods (2009).
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#54
One of Upton Sinclair's antagonists in The Jungle argued that very thing...
LanternWaste
Jun 2012
#37
It IS illegal to label food as not containing GMO, you really dont know what you are talking about
stockholmer
Jun 2012
#82
"Who said you should be required to buy food that you don't want to buy?"
A Simple Game
Jun 2012
#68
A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health
PostCapitalist
Jun 2012
#74
Monsanto GMO's linked to organ failure + GMO causes sterility in lab animals in 3 generations + more
stockholmer
Jun 2012
#81
I don't think that consumer choice requires a scientific justification...
LanternWaste
Aug 2012
#153
Actually there is a good reason not to label because nearly all processed foods do contain GMO
yellowcanine
Jun 2012
#125
Yeah, everybody's so healthy that we should just accept the status quo.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#127
seriously rat poison (you probably know already, it made the rats very sick.)
Voice for Peace
Aug 2012
#158
I don't get your question, & believe you may be trying to bait me so I'll decline to engage, thanks.
Voice for Peace
Jul 2014
#184
I would rather have physicians making recommendations about food safety than politicians.
yellowcanine
Jun 2012
#126
No what they are saying is that the GM process does not inherently make food less safe.
yellowcanine
Jun 2012
#129
Almost all processed foods contain GMO. So labeling is pretty much useless.
yellowcanine
Jun 2012
#133
Labeling is done in at least 49 countries worldwide and alternatives to GMOsourced food exist there.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#134
"Labeling is done in 49 countries" is not a valid argument. Look up "is/ought fallacy"
yellowcanine
Jun 2012
#145
Regardless, I would still like to know if the food I'm eating has been genetically altered.
Arkansas Granny
Jun 2012
#7
What's wrong with just being able to glance at any food package and tell if it has GMO ingredients?
Fumesucker
Jun 2012
#13
The issue is that the consumer has a right to know what they are purchasing.
Arkansas Granny
Jun 2012
#26
I don't recall that I have ever seen a label that says a food is NOT GMO.
Arkansas Granny
Jun 2012
#43
Yes I have. On some food items we are starting to see "No GMO's" "No BGH"..
PostCapitalist
Jun 2012
#75
Yep. Too bad the air quality of DU goes down with every outburst of trollish flatulence.
freshwest
Jun 2012
#88
The repetition is a dead give away, and the smell. You just can't escape... Le Sigh...
freshwest
Jun 2012
#92
7/6/12 NEWS - The 'Monsanto Rider': Are Biotech Companies About to Gain Immunity from Federal Law?
proverbialwisdom
Jul 2012
#147
That's way too pessimistic. I think a huge brawl is happening within the AMA over this (post #47).
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#76
Do you know how your Senator voted on the Sanders-Boxer amendment to permit states to require labels
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#86
Processed food additives from soy, corn, canola, sugar beets, cottonseed are GMO unless organic.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#97
Food Rules by Michael Pollan provides a simple guide without mentioning the term GMO.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#103
Fair point, and thanks, but that poster was talking about produce, saying sticker provides a clue
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2012
#106
I simultaneously feel that we're both on the same side, and that you just want to be confrontational
DisgustipatedinCA
Jun 2012
#110
Defeatist malarky or, rather, wishful thinking by fake food biz considering abysmal health outcomes.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#116
I'm very disappointed to see the number of Democrats voting nay with the Republican on this.
RainbowSuperfund
Jun 2012
#122
It may not be a question of need in the minds of the AMA but it is a question of what the public
Citizen Worker
Jun 2012
#98
Deciphering supermarket code system of fruits/veggies to find out if GMO:
mother earth
Jun 2012
#119
Just say if the code starts with 8, then the item is GMO; if it starts with 9, it cannot be GMO.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#120
Yes, certainly simplify to whatever suits your needs, but there is much confusion in "organic" & the
mother earth
Jun 2012
#121
What are you talking about? "GMO organics" do not exist, nor should they, despite what GMO co. want.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#123
Marketing/labeling organics when they aren't...that's what I mean, hence the confusion for the
mother earth
Jun 2012
#140
17 June 2012, EarthOpenSource Report: "GMO Myths and Truths, An evidence-based examination..."
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#124
Old MacDonald had a Farm, E-I-E-I-O. With a gmo here and a gmo there...
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#135
Friends of the Earth News Release: Going GM-Free in Europe but not USA.
proverbialwisdom
Jun 2012
#136
They might want to reconsider after reading this article posted in another thread:
RainbowSuperfund
Jun 2012
#138
Mother Jones:"Food Industry Ditches Trans Fats, Kids' Cholesterol Levels Drop"
proverbialwisdom
Aug 2012
#149