The DISH

Unbossed and unbought news and information you can use

Vol. 13 Issue 21…Dedicated to the Dialogue on Race…May 23, 2010

Intuit's Vibe

"Modern Food"

By Daniel J Towsey

Is highly processed, grown in greenhouses

with herbicides and pesticides

from genetically modified seeds.

Then we'll add some preservatives, color, and then

we'll irradiate it before freezing it.

Now get some cloned meat that was injected with gender

altering hormones and fed genetically

modified food and animal remnants

that cause mad cow disease.

Humm, sounds like it's going to

be so yummy and good!

Now don't forget to get some of that

artificial sauce with all those

unknown ingredients to spread

on that steak.

Did you pick up some of that MSG

[monosodiumglutomate]

meat tenderizer?

Are you going to have some water

poisoned with hazardous waste

byproduct from the aluminum and nuclear industries known as fluoride?

Now eat up and you'll become a

finely preserved artificial person.

Venue for an Artist

Hungry by the Numbers

By David Bacon and Betsy Edwards

The federal government, in its infinite wisdom, has tried to define for us what being hungry means. They've come up with a yardstick, called "food insecurity." It means people who have less food than they want and need. It includes people who actually go hungry, but also those who've had to reduce the amount they eat, skip meals, or eat food they know isn't good for them, because they can't afford what it really takes to eat.

Late last fall the US Department of Agriculture shocked even those people who are used to thinking about the problems of hunger, when it released a report that counted the number of hungry families in this, the richest country in the world. It turns out we're not so rich after all, as anyone who's lost a job or a home in the Great Recession could easily tell you. Still, the numbers are like a sharp blow upside the head.

Some 16 percent of all families were food insecure - they didn't have the money to buy enough food at some point during 2008, up from 12 percent the year before. That amounted to 49 million people, including more than 16 million children. That's almost a quarter of all the children in the United States, and 4 million more than it was in 2007. This year we know the number is higher - we just don't know how much higher - yet.

About a third of those families simply didn't get enough food to eat. That's called, in USDA parlance, very low food security. That means these families went hungry. That included 12 million adults, and 5 million kids.

The other two thirds of food insecure families only survived because they had access to federal food programs, or got food at a local food pantry or soup kitchen. That means they were hungry too, but not quite as much.

Hunger isn't really spread evenly, as is obvious when you think about it. More in Oakland. Less in Lafayette. More than a quarter of all black and Latino households were food insecure - compared to 16 percent in general. And more than 13 percent of all families made up of single moms and their children were not just food insecure, but outright hungry.

Some 42.2 percent of food-insecure households had incomes below the official poverty line, which is $21,834 for a family of four in 2008. So more than half of all hungry families actually had incomes above the poverty line. That poverty line, that official yardstick, is so low that millions of families not officially "in poverty" still don't have enough money to buy the food they need.

This was 2008, when the recession was just beginning. Last year, with unemployment in California reaching more than 12 percent, these numbers all went up. Again, we don't know yet by exactly how much, but we can be sure it's going to be a big jump.

We do know that the breadwinners in hundreds of thousands of California families suddenly lost their jobs. Families that formerly had no trouble feeding themselves, and even went out to eat in restaurants, couldn't put enough food on the table at home at some point to keep everyone from getting up hungry. So people went to food banks, food pantries, and soup kitchens to try to make up for what they could no longer buy.

Almost five million people went to food pantries last year, up from 4 million the year before. About 625,000 ate in soup kitchens.

National numbers sometimes don't tell the local story, though. How many hungry people do we have where we actually live? Alameda County, with a population of 1.5 million, had probably a quarter of a million food insecure people in 2008.

Contra Costa 160,000. Oakland 64,000. Berkeley and Richmond 16,000 each. Hayward over 22,000 and Alameda over 11,000. There were over 20,000 hungry children in Oakland alone. Do the math for your own neighborhood or city.

These are the numbers. The real question is, in your neighborhood? On your street? In the house down your block, or next door? Or could we be talking about you? (Source: www.eastbayexpress.com)

News You Use

Killing the Food Supply

By Anthony Gucciardi

Genetically modified food has entered the food supply through secrecy and deception. Some claimed that genetically modifying the food supply could even put an end to world hunger. At first glance, genetic modification really does look like a great idea. It allows for larger crops, enhanced growing seasons, and even bigger animals. The truth of the matter is that genetically modified food has been shown to sterilize the population, lead to infant mortality, and exacerbate the usage of pesticides on a global scale.

Food Abomination...The world is quickly realizing that there is no benefit to consuming and producing genetically modified food. The consumers are speaking out, and their voice is being heard. Food free of genetically modified ingredients is the fastest growing retail brand.

As the information surrounding genetically modified food rose to the mainstream media, the people began to anger. They were looking for someone to blame for allowing this atrocity to occur, and they had to look no farther than Monsanto.

The Monsanto Corporation is a multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is responsible for producing and selling genetically engineered seeds.

These are the seeds that yield genetically modified crops. Monsanto has such a grip on the industry that it produces 90% of the United State's genetically engineered seeds. This is the same company responsible for the development of bovine growth hormone, which incited mass controversy over its effects. It was determined by many health experts to be extremely dangerous, with many linking it to cancer and other life-threatening conditions.

Numerous studies have proven genetically modified foods to be an extreme health hazard, but one must only look at how it is created to realize how unsafe GM food really is.

The following is an excerpt from Blind Health: Forbes Magazine Declares Monsanto Company of the Year, an article I authored that exposes GM foods. The article was featured on multiple top news websites.

The bioengineering process itself is quite ridiculous. Billions are spent each year to genetically modify the food supply, tainting it with genetically modified frankenfood. Genetically modifying foods requires one to tamper with the very genetic coding of the crop and/or seed. The process entails the transfer of genes from one organism to another, such as taking particular genes from a pig and transferring them to a tomato. Not only does this defile nature; it leads to a host of health problems.

Due to the complexity of a living organism's genetic structure, it is impossible to track the long-term results of consuming genetically modified food. Introducing new genes into even the simplest bacterium may cause an array of issues, highlighting the complexity of even the simplest organisms. Introducing new genes to highly complex organisms such as animals or crops is even riskier.

When introducing the gene to its new host, it is essentially impossible to predict the reaction. The genetic intelligence of the host could be disrupted with the introduction of the new gene, creating an adverse reaction. There is truly no way of knowing the long-term effect of genetically modified food as there are too many variables. There is simply no room for science when Monsanto is involved.

The World Takes Action...What the world is beginning to see is a swift call to action against not only genetic modification of the food supply, but against the contamination of our food supply worldwide. The people are beginning to demand that high fructose corn syrup be taken out of their food, and that aspartame be removed from products like diet soda and chewing gum. Big corporations love to push such food abominations upon us, but sooner or later the citizens demand action.

India has recently begun to recognize the dangers of genetically modified food, calling for a multitude of scientific studies to determine whether or not the food poses a threat. The people of India had been calling for a change that the government was forced to recognize.

"Public sentiment is negative. It is my duty to adopt a cautious, precautionary, principle-based approach," said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh.

Even in the United States, Monsanto is currently under investigation by seven states. Since so many concerned citizens are demanding something be done about genetically modified food, the government of your nation is forced to respond. Through activism and spreading the word, genetically modified food can easily be made a sad mistake of the past. (Source: www.infowars.com)

Hood Notes

Marketing Junk Food (Excerpts)

By Jill Richardson

Seven-year-old Marley loves Happy Meals from McDonald's. She used to get Chicken McNuggets, but now she chooses a cheeseburger to go with her fries and Sprite. Her father, Patrick, is a chef, trained at the Culinary Institute of America, but Marley prefers McDonald's to his cooking. After a trip to McDonald's, Marley eagerly surfs onto McWorld.com, where she can enter a code from her meal to get a "behind-the-scenes look at iCarly," a kids' TV show (boys can use their code for a Star Wars promotion).

Patrick pulled the plug on his television a few months ago, in part to shield his two young daughters from advertising, but the McDonald's marketing execs have reached Marley all the same. Because he's health- and environmentally-conscious, Patrick does not take her to McDonald's often, but after a long day of school and extra-curricular activities, sometimes a little nagging is all it takes for Marley to convince her dad that she's hungry now and only food served at a drive-thru will do.

Marley and Patrick are normal, apart from his cooking skills and their home's lack of TV. Approximately one out of three fast food trips occur due to a child's nagging -- a fact that does not elude junk food marketers, who advertise to kids with the very goal of getting kids to nag their parents for the advertised product. It's not by accident that foods marketed to children come with toys or in boxes plastered with popular cartoon characters, located strategically at children's eye level. And today's generation is the target of more marketing and more types of marketing than their parents, who didn't grow up with the Internet, iPods or cell phones.

Instead of TV commercials that can be ignored or muted, marketers now know how to create promotional content that viewers pay more attention to. For example, a Kraft Web site challenges consumers to "send a custom video to your friends to show how much you love KD [Kraft Dinner]." And just in case no one has sent you such a video, you can waste hours viewing the "Gallery" of videos submitted by others. Kids today can log onto numerous commercial Web sites and create avatars, play with virtual pets and interact with their favorite movie, comic book and TV characters.

On the McDonald's site alone, they can connect with their friends, enter contests, download coupons for McDonald's products, play interactive games and provide McDonald's with valuable market research by saving their favorite activities in a customized profile and even voting on the name of new products or marketing tools. With mobile applications, kids can take their virtual world with them wherever they go.

Yet children Marley's age (up to about age 8) do not understand advertising's persuasive intent, and very young children cannot even distinguish between commercials and program content, according to the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. Even after a child can understand an ad's intent, he or she still might lack the judgment to determine the consequences of buying the product, and the ad still undermines the judgment of his or her parents by appealing directly to the kid. So why is marketing to kids allowed at all?

The U.S. government is currently looking at food marketing to children. Food isn't the only product marketed to kids, but food marketing is under more scrutiny than other marketing as politicians, health care providers and others look to uncover the causes of the current childhood obesity epidemic. In 2006, food companies spent $1.6 billion marketing products -- mostly soda, fast food and cereal -- to kids. That same year, fast food restaurants sold more than 1.2 billion kids' meals with toys. (For the complete article, visit http://www.alternet.org/story/146093/)

Politics Y2K10

Break Up Big Food

The evidence is in: America's food system is broken. Every week we read about record-breaking food recalls, a spiraling childhood obesity epidemic, and the continued loss of independent family farmers. All of these problems can be traced back to one thing: excessive consolidation by Big, corporate food.

The aisles of most American grocery stores give the illusion of choice when it comes to food. A closer look, however, quickly reveals that most of the meat, grain, milk -- and even the grocery stores themselves -- are all owned and controlled by just a few corporations. These companies dictate to us how our food is produced, how much farmers are paid for their crops and livestock and how much consumers pay for food.

The figures on corporate food are startling. A single company, Monsanto, controls the seeds of 93% of soybeans and 80% of the corn grown in the US. Four (4) companies, Tyson, Cargill, Swift, and National Beef Packing Co., control 83% of the beef packing industry. Four (4) companies, Smithfield, Tyson, Swift, and Cargill, control 66% of the pork packing industry.

Recently, the Departments of Justice and Agriculture held their first joint workshop to gather evidence of antitrust violations in food and agriculture. Food Democracy Now activists in attendance were encouraged by the workshop, the first of five to be held this year. Attorney General Eric Holder talked about the "reckless deregulation that has restricted competition in agriculture" and promised that the Department of Justice, under his watch, was committed to "vigorous enforcement" of U.S. antitrust laws. However, given the power of BIG food, it is safe to assume the change needed will not come easily. These companies were well represented on the panels, while the family farmers most negatively impacted by corporate food monopolies were only given the opportunity to speak after public officials had left the building.

Even though these workshops are an important first step, real family farmers must have a seat at the table. For this to happen, Food Democracy Now is calling on all of us to tell Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack that it's time to break up America's corporate food monopolies before they do more harm.

It only takes a few minutes. Simply click on or cut and paste into your Internet browser

http://fdn.actionkit.com/cms/sign/bust_up_big_food/. After you have signed the petition, please ask your friends and family to do the same.

The first and second meetings were held in Iowa and Normal, Alabama. The May 21st, 2010 Alabama meeting focused on the poultry industry. The June 7 hearing will look at the notoriously concentrated dairy industry in Madison, Wisconsin. For more email info@fooddemocracynow.org.

Disgruntled feels: Modified! According to the latest food research, approximately 75% percent of the processed foods consumed in the US contain some genetically modified ingredient. That does not bode well for the health and welfare of average American consumers. The elite - the wealthy among us that can afford to buy the best of everything - need not worry. However, for those of us that patronize American supermarkets and corner grocery stores, research on genetically modified foods show some alarming consequences, including liver damage and reproduction problems. The latest research on hamsters suggests that by eating modified foods we may be eating ourselves into extinction. The study showed that hamsters fed genetically modified foods produced grandchildren that were unable to produce offspring.

Disgruntled wants to know: I am encouraged by the focus of media attention on obesity, especially among young people. However, I am not sure those in positions to bring about change are focusing on the root cause of the problem. In a country where food is plentiful, there have always been heavy-set people in the US. This country certainly has had and continues to have its share of the morbidly obese. Their numbers have quadrupled in the past half-century, just as the way we produce food has dramatically altered. I am convinced that in addition to looking at fast food, sodium and sugar content, the need for more exercise and a balanced diet, we should look at the impact on humans of consuming meat and diary products from animals injected with growth hormones. What if the rapid maturation of girls and childhood obesity are linked to these hormones?

Disgruntled wants to know: Established in 1962 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex) is the major international organization that encourages fair international trade in food and protection of the health and economic interests of consumers. The food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees are promoted for adoption and implementation by governments. In theory, Codex seeks to ensure that the world's food supply is sound, wholesome, free from adulteration, and correctly labeled. Ironically, at its most recent conference, the USA's delegation fought for passage of a resolution that prevents labeling to identify non-GMO foods. Without the benefit of research, the US government has adopted the position that there is no difference between GMO and Non-GMO foods. It has foisted on the US public GMO foods without the benefit of testing and refused to identify these products so the public can make informed decisions about what it consumes. Our government is serving the interest of Monsanto in this instance; the public be damned!

Mailbox: E-Mail, Faxes and Telephone Calls

Email ...www.kfor.com ...Obesity, a Chemical Reaction?...By Meg Alexander...A new study found overweight young girls had significantly higher levels of phthalates, a chemical found in plastics...Studies are showing increasing evidence there may be a link between certain chemicals and obesity. A new study found overweight young girls had significantly higher levels of phthalates than the general population of children. Phthalates are found in plastics and can be hormone disruptors. Nutritionist Keith Bishop of Oklahoma City says these disruptors can cause all sorts of problems, "The plastics attach to receptors on the cells. If it's a fat cell, it can stimulate that cell to grow and get bigger." These plastics can also attach to the thyroid, according to Bishop, causing metabolism problems. Bishop suggests steering clear of food wrapped or stored in plastic. He suggests eating fresh or frozen fruits and vegetables and using stainless steel or caste iron cookware. The non-stick pans may contain chemicals that leach into food. Some other things to also be warned about -- the lining of tin cans and the lining in microwave popcorn.

Email www.reuters.com ...Food-stamp tally nears 40 million, sets record... Nearly 40 million Americans received food stamps -- the latest in an ever-higher string of record enrollment that dates from December 2008 and the U.S. recession, according to a government update. Food stamps are the primary federal anti-hunger program, helping poor people buy food. Enrollment is highest during times of economic distress. The Agriculture Department said 39.68 million people, or 1 in 8 Americans, were enrolled for food stamps during February, an increase of 260,000 from January. "This is the highest share of the U.S. population on SNAP/food stamps," said the anti-hunger group Food Research and Action Center, using the new name for food stamps, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). "Research suggests that one in three eligible people are not receiving ... benefits." Enrollment has set a record each month since reaching 31.78 million in December 2008. USDA estimates enrollment will average 40.5 million people this fiscal year, which ends Sept 30, at a cost of up to $59 billion.

Email www.Mercola.com ...Is sugar a sweet old friend that is secretly plotting your demise? There is a vast sea of research suggesting that it is. Science has now shown us, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that sugar in your food, in all its myriad of forms, is taking a devastating toll on your health. The single largest source of calories for Americans comes from sugar -- specifically high fructose corn syrup. Just take a look at the sugar consumption trends of the past 300 years. In 1700, the average person consumed about 4 pounds of sugar per year. In 1800, the average person consumed about 18 pounds of sugar per year. In 1900, individual consumption had risen to 90 pounds of sugar per year. In 2009, more than 50 percent of all Americans consume one-half pound of sugar PER DAY--translating to a whopping 180 pounds of sugar per year! Sugar is loaded into your soft drinks, fruit juices, sports drinks, and hidden in almost all processed foods--from bologna to pretzels to Worcestershire sauce to cheese spread. And now most infant formula has the sugar equivalent of one can of Coca-Cola, so babies are being metabolically poisoned from day one if taking formula.