Explore Posterous

8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Food

November 20th, 2009  By Robyn O'Brien

The landscape of health has changed. No longer are our families guaranteed a healthy livelihood, not in the face of the current rates of cancer, diabetes, obesity, Alzheimer’s and allergies. In the words of Elizabeth Warren, Harvard University law professor who is head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, “We need a new model,” and we need a new food system. It’s our health on the line.

8 Steps Obama Could Take to Save Food:

1. Evenly distribute government moneys to all farmers. The current system allocates the lion share of our tax dollars (approximately $60 billion) to farmers growing crops whose seeds have been engineered to produce their own insecticides and tolerate increasing doses of weed killing herbicides. As a result, these crops, with a large chemical footprint, are cheaper to produce, while farmers growing organic produce are charged fees to prove that their crops are safe and then charged additional fees to label these crops as free of synthetic chemicals and “organic”. If organic farmers received an equal distribution of taxpayer funded handouts from the government, the cost of producing crops free from synthetic chemicals would be cheaper, making these crops more affordable to more people, in turn increasing demand for these products which would further drive down costs.  If we were to reallocate our national budget and evenly distribute our tax dollars to all farmers, clean food would be affordable to everyone and not just those in certain zip codes.

2. Reinstitute the USDA pesticide reporting standard that was waived under the Bush administration. In 2008, the USDA waived pesticide reporting requirements (a procedure that has been in place since the early 1990s) so that farmers and consumers would know the level of chemicals being applied to food crops. Given a report just released that reveals a 383 million pound increase in the use of weed killing herbicides since the introduction of herbicide tolerant crops in 1996 and the potential impact that this glyphosate containing compound is having on both the environment and on our health, perhaps the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy assumed under the previous administration should be reversed.

3. Reinstate the pre-Bush administration dollar value that the EPA places on the life of every American. in May 2008, the Bush administration lowered the value placed on the life of every American by almost $1 million, benefiting corporations who use this figure in their cost benefit analyses, marking down our lives from $7.8 million to $6.9 million the same way a car dealer might markdown a “96 Camaro with bad brakes. The EPA figure is used to assess corporate liability when a company’s actions put a life at risk. While this figure benefits the corporations conducting the cost benefit analysis when assessing the health impact of their chemicals, the costs of these chemicals are being externalized onto the public in the form of health care costs.

4. Allow public debate over the nomination of pesticide lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. As addressed in a letter sent to Chairman Max Baucus and Ranking Member Charles Grassley of the Senate Finance Committee, Islam Siddiqui, nominated for Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative, was formerly employed by CropLife America, whose firm challenged Michelle Obama’s organic garden, has consistently lobbied the U.S government to weaken international treaties governing the use and export of toxic chemicals such as PCBs, DDT and dioxins, and blocked international attempts to help regulate pesticides that increasingly linked to chronic skin and respiratory problems, birth defects and cancer in our community. Given that a growing body of scientific evidence supports the theory that chemicals in our food are contributing to the rise in health problems, particularly in children, the appointment of an industry lobbyist to export our challenged food system to the rest of the world may be in the best interest of agrichemical corporations but consideration should also be given to the health implications that these novel chemicals, proteins and allergens may have.

5. Encourage climate change advocates like Al Gore to discuss Pesticide Use by Big Ag and its Chemical Footprint. While speaking openly about the petroleum industry’s impact on global warming, leading environmental advocates like Al Gore have been quiet about the chemical contribution that the recent introduction of crops genetically engineered with pesticidal toxins play on global warming despite scientific evidence from the Royal Society of Chemistry highlighting their impact. Since the Clinton Administration’s introduction of biotech crops designed and engineered to both withstand increasing doses of weed killing chemicals and produce their own insecticides, new reports based on USDA data, show a 383 million pound increase in the chemicals being applied to these crops since their introduction in 1996. According to the Royal Society of Chemistry, “growing biofuels is probably of no benefit and in fact is actually making the climate issue worse” given that glyphosate, being applied in increasing doses to these crops, breaks down into nitrogen.

6. Update the Consumer Protection and Food Allergen Labeling Act to inform consumers of these newly engineered corn allergens. The recent engineering of novel food proteins and toxins into the US food supply has enhanced profitability for the food industry by allowing commodities like corn to produce their own insecticides. As a result, corn is now considered an insecticide and regulated by the EPA .  For this same reason, this corn has been either banned or labeled in products in other developed countries because the new toxins and novel allergens that it contains have not yet been proven safe. Despite the lack of evidence, this corn is in the American food supply. The increase in the rate of food allergies as demonstrated in the December issue of Pediatrics and the growing number of people with this condition- whose bodies recognize food as “foreign” and launch inflammatory reaction in an effort to drive out these “foreign” food invaders, speaks to the need to update and amend the food allergen labeling act to label these newly engineered genetically enhanced proteins and allergens as governments around the world do.

7. Ask the SEC to join the Department of Justice in its investigation into trade practices in agrichemical industry. As the Department of Justice begins its investigation into the impact that Monsanto’s monopoly is having on farmers, their financial situation and the food supply, research out of the USDA highlights that the biotech industry is not delivering on what some are calling their “hype-to-reality ratio”. As farmers are charged premiums for seeds that have been engineered to produce greater yields, research out of the USDA, Kansas State University shows that these products are not delivering as promised, directly impacting the cost structures of farmers in a razor to razorblade scenario. As farmers purchase genetically modified seeds in the hopes that they will increase yields and drive down cost structure and their dependency on weed killers, studies now suggest that since the introduction of the “razor”, these biotech crops introduced 13 years ago, farmers are actually spending more on the “razorblade”, the herbicides and weed killers required to manage them, driving farmers debt to asset ratios to record levels. Given that Monsanto’s CFO, Treasurer, Controller are all leaving the company by year end, the Securities and Exchange Commission could interview these three exiting executives and learn more about the financial predicaments of Big Ag’s customers, the farmers, and the greater ramifications that this monopoly will have on food prices.

8. Appoint a Children’s Health Advisor to serve on the USDA’s National School Lunch Program. The landscape of children’s health has changed. No longer are the American children guaranteed a healthy childhood, not in the face of the current rates of obesity, diabetes and allergies. Perhaps it is time that we follow the lead of governments in other developed countries and create a Chief Advisor for Child and Youth Health whose responsibilities might include, but not be limited to, serving in an advisory capacity to the USDA on the National School Lunch Program. Under the USDA’s current budget for the National School Lunch Program of approximately $8.5 billion (in comparison the Pentagon’s 2009 budget $600 billion), less than a dollar is available per meal for the purchase of healthy food once overhead costs are taken out. Given that 1 in 3 American children now has allergies, ADHD, autism of asthma and according to an October 2008 study from the Centers for Disease Control, 1 in 3 Fourth graders is expected to be insulin dependent by the time they reach adulthood. As a result, dietary concerns are becoming increasingly prevalent for the estimated 30.9 million children and approximately 102,000 schools and child care institutions that participate in the National School Lunch Program. Given that increasing scientific evidence points to the roles that environmental insults like synthetic growth hormones in milk and trans fats in processed foods are having on our health, investing in a children’s health advisor may provide long term benefits to the future of our health care system .

It’s our food system on the line.  And if our children are any indicator, our health and the economic burden that it presents are on the line, too.

According to the New York Times, Robyn O'Brien is "food's Erin Brockovich." As the founder of AllergyKids, an organization designed to protect the 1 in 3 American children with autism, allergies, ADHD and asthma, Robyn has appeared on Good Morning America, CBS Evening News with Katie Couric and CNN highlighting the role that chemicals in our food supply are having on our health. Born and raised in a conservative Texas family on supply side economics and the Wall Street Journal, Robyn earned a Fulbright Fellowship, an MBA and served as an equity analyst on a multibillion dollar fund prior to moving to Boulder, Colorado with her husband and four children. She is the author of the book, The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do About It.

 

By LYNSI BURTON

Hearst Newspapers

WASHINGTON — In a bid to win support from fence-sitting moderate Democratic senators, the Senate leadership has included provisions in its healthcare proposal that would bar any aid to illegal immigrants and would restrict assistance to immigrants residing legally in the United States.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needs the support of all 58 Democrats and both independent senators in a procedural showdown vote today on whether he can block a Republican filibuster that would kill the health bill.

The result: Moderate-to-conservative Democratic senators such as Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, along with independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, effectively have veto power over the bill.

Like the recently approved House version of healthcare reform, the Senate bill would deny federal subsidies to help undocumented immigrants buy insurance. But the Senate bill would also bar undocumented immigrants from participating in health insurance exchanges even if they pay full price with their own funds.

The Senate would also impose a five-year waiting period before legal immigrants who are not citizens could gain access to any federal health insurance subsidies.

The concessions to immigration critics have shaken Latino rights groups, who have strongly backed Democratic attempts to overhaul the American healthcare system.

"Diseases know no boundaries," said Elena Rios, president of the National Hispanic Medical Association. "The best idea would be to have everyone have healthcare."

Hispanics in the House — there are none in the Senate — are furious. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., calls the Senate provisions "mean-spirited" and "dehumanizing."

Some medical providers in cities like Houston contend that taxpayers would be the ultimate victim of any plan that keeps immigrants away from primary doctors and instead funnels them to public hospitals’ emergency rooms.

"Those problems are not going to go away" unless immigrants obtain access to primary-care physicians rather than using emergency rooms as a first resort, said David Lopez, CEO of the Harris County Hospital District. "I think it needs to be addressed now."

Texas has the highest number of uninsured immigrants in the U.S. Of the 6 million or so uninsured residents in Texas, about 1.5 million are not citizens, said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin.

Looking for comments?

A man should be careful talking about mammograms. But the report issued this week by a panel of doctors who recommended less frequent testing for breast cancer in women under 50 comes as Congress and the country debate health care coverage.

Since the report came out, news accounts and blogs have featured hundreds of personal stories from women in their 40s who say—just this bluntly—that these new guidelines would have killed them by letting their cancer grow without detection.

I know enough about mammograms to know that they're not marshmallow treats. They're painful and humiliating tests that squash a woman where it hurts most. Most men—myself included; maybe even Daniel Craig included—would cringe to have a mammogram.

And when the results are what they call "false-positive," a week or more of worry and anxiety follow, along with a stinging biopsy. It's good news if nothing is found, but still a punishing experience. I can understand why a lot of women would almost welcome a medical excuse to avoid an annual mammogram.

The Washington Post ran a piece Friday by two physicians who worked with the doctor's task force. Douglas Kamerow at Georgetown University, and Steven Woolf, at Virginia Commonwealth, defended their recommendation, noting that every 1,900 screenings in women ages 39 to 49 produced just one case in which cancer was discovered and arrested.

They suggested that between bad results and biopsies, annual tests lead to a lot more worry and pain than cures. And, yes, cost a lot of money that might be directed elsewhere.

Of course: what if you are that one woman in 1,900? Or that one woman is your wife or mother? And if you screen just 1 million women between the ages of 39 and 49, statistics suggest you may catch cancer before it can grow in 526 women.

Maybe we shouldn't be shocked, shocked to think some doctors might find the chance to save one life in 1,900 to be small result for so much effort. A lot of us play with our odds of survival by smoking, overeating, or talking on the phone while driving.

People on all sides of the health care debate like to talk about how money can be saved in their particular plan by reducing the number of medical tests that seem redundant or unnecessary. This week, we may have seen what happens when someone suggests a way to actually do that. A lot of people decide they can't live with that.

Thank you, Scott.

There is no question more women than ever before are surviving breast cancer. This is happening because of early screening and better and more aggressive treatment. So I was absolutely shocked today to hear that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (a committee appointed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) is now recommending that women do not get regular mammograms until their fifties and even then limit screening to every other year. In addition they are suggesting that breast self exams not be taught. ARE THEY CRAZY?

There is no way to completely express my feelings about this. I was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer at the age of 44, and the tumor was discovered through self breast exam and confirmed through a mammogram. This was only 18 months since a previous mammogram that was negative. My story is not unique.

I am wondering if the members of the Preventive Services Task Force have been living in a cave for the past decade. We have come so far. We can predict breast cancer through genetic screening. We have digital imaging along with mammograms to help detect tumors earlier. Efforts to raise breast cancer awareness and research funds is amazing. What on earth is this group thinking?  It all sounds so backwards, especially now that we are seeing some progress on health care reform.

This is an assault against women. There is no other way to describe it. Although breast cancer strikes men as well, breast cancer is identified as a woman’s disease and these guidelines are targeted at women’s health.

I am angry and I hope you are too. I will be contacting my representatives and I intend to be relentless.

Kathy-Ellen

I think that last suggestion is the important one--make sure Congress hears from you that this recommendation should not be implemented.