Turn on the TV and you'll be warned to stay away from everything from sharks to black ice. Anyone else feel like pesticide risks seem to get swept under the rug?  This story, for instance from over a year ago went unnoticed by our staff despite its horrific nature. The report details how 3 women who lived in the same neighborhood gave birth to 3 children, all within a few weeks of each other, all with severe birth defects. What else did these women have in common? They lived near and worked on tomato fields in Florida owned by Ag-Mart Produce, where they were exposed to common pesticides.

One child was born without arms or legs, one with a jaw that wouldn't stay attached to his skull and the last with only one ear, one kidney, no nose, no anus and other issues, who unfortunately died only three days after birth.

Dozens of highly toxic chemicals were sprayed onto the fields where they worked, "... and at least three, the herbicide metribuzin, the fungicide mancozeb, and the insecticide avermectin, are know to be 'developmental and reproductive toxins,' according to the Pesticide Action Network. They are teratogenic, meaning they can cause birth defects." (source)

So the real question is, if these are so toxic to be around, why are we putting them on our food? The tomatoes in question are actually marketed to children.

For safety information on how to handle pesticides when you are pregnant, you can see this page from the American Pregnancy Organization.

Do you feel informed about the risks of herbicides and pesticides?

Labels: chemicals, herbicides, pesticides, pregnancy, tomatoes, toxic

By now you've probably gotten wind of the story that NPR put out about the Standford study on organic produce as compared to conventionally grown produce. The NY Times also reported on it, more than once, as well as Discovery.com. The gist of the reporting is that organic is no better than conventional foods. At least, that is what you would take away from the headlines if you didn't dig deeper. Luckily plenty of people did.

Here is an interesting retort of the reported-on story by Nora Poullion, over at the Washington Post. Sustainable Food News also had some opinions. What did the study actually find? (Actually, it wasn't novel research, it was simply a meta-analysis of the current available research.) It found that organic food has less pesticides. It also found that the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork. They also found strong evidence that organic foods are generally more nutritious than their conventional counterparts.

What did the headlines read? "Organic foods not healthier, study finds.", "Why organic food may not be healthier for you", etc. Natural News reported on this strange occurrence, where sensationalized headlines misrepresent the facts.

The abstract of the study can be found here. If you actually get the entire paper and read it, you see that the outcomes of the study are not as surprising as the headlines make them out to be. Of course, there are numerous benefits to organic food and organic farming. One of the most important of which, is exposure to herbicides and pesticides. Conventional farming exposes consumers to many times the amount of these chemicals that organic produce does. For more details on the study head over to Food Matters.

At Innate Response, we are acutely aware of the dangers of herbicides and pesticides. We currently test every single batch of our vitamins for over 140 compounds and counting. We add new ones as we become aware of them in order to deliver as pure and clean a product as possible to our practitioners and their patients.

So what do you think? Is organic food important?

Labels: conventional, farming, herbicides, organic, pesticides

Pesticides are damaging. Agricultural pesticides have been linked to autism, ADHD, birth defects and developmental problems. Innate Response takes great pride in our products being free of herbicides and pesticides, and it is the culture of our company to buy organic and local whenever possible in order to avoid unnecessary exposure to these harmful chemicals.

"The researchers sampled air in 25 households, finding at least five pesticides in 60 percent of the dwellings. Nine other pesticides were identified in less than one-third of the homes. All the women were in the third trimester of pregnancy, when the fetal brain undergoes a growth spurt. Numerous studies have reported birth defects and developmental problems when fetuses and infants are exposed to pesticides, especially exposures that adversely affect mental and motor development during infancy and childhood. This new report is in the summer issue of the Texas Public Health Journal sent to members this week.

The study found 92 percent of air samples contained o-phenylphenol, which is used as a fungicide, germicide and household disinfectant, while 80 percent of samples contained chlorpyrifos, used in agriculture and to kill mosquitoes and other insects. Chlorpyrifos has been well-documented as posing risks to babies exposed in the womb to brain abnormalities after birth. Researchers asked the women questions about pesticide use and exposure, proximity to agricultural fields, the frequency of spraying operations, and the detection of pesticide odors drifting from fields. Air samples were measured for multiple pesticides used in agriculture, given the close proximity of the fields to participant homes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last week announced new mitigation measures to reduce bystander exposure to chlorpyrifos drift from agricultural fields, including the use of buffer zones for residential areas, schools, hospitals etc."

We recommend that pregnant women eat organic whenever possible and avoid products that contain ingredients that were grown with pesticides and herbicides. And try some natural pest and bug remedies. Peppermint oil makes a great pest deterrent. Sprinkle a few drops in any spots in the house where you spot ants. And try this natural and chemical-free bug spray!

Labels: bugs, children, health, herbicides, pesticides, pregnancy, pregnant

Genetically Modified Organisms, also known as GMO's: what do we really know about them? They are a hot-button topic and have been popping up more and more in recent news stories. The most recent coverage follows the California GMO labeling ballot which will be voted on in November. The "Right to Know Genetically Engineered Food Act" will require all foods that contain GMOs to be labeled as such.  Petitioners got more than twice the required number of signatures to get this issue on the ballot. And as of recent polls, a staggering 95% of voters plan to vote in favor of labeling GMO foods. Word on the street is that there are a slew of lobbyists and high-powered PR professionals that are being paid big money in order to convince the public otherwise, allowing GMOs to continue to be seamlessly integrated into the food system, with Americans none-the-wiser. If the bill passes later this year, it's likely that the trend will continue and other states will eventually benefit from the bill. But how did we get here? How is it that we are finding ourselves needing to battle so hard just to know whats in our food?


Before 1900, people pretty much ate what was hunted and gathered in nature.  Around the turn of the century, European plant farmers began hone the techniques of using genetic theory in order to genetically manipulate various species via natural breeding. This process was called "classic selection". The discovery of DNA in 1953 and later tinkering with its properties began, leading the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that genetically modified organisms could be patented. As you know, once something can be owned, it can be exploited.

Though Europe got a bit of a head start, it wasn't until 1987 that the first field tests on genetically modified foods were being conducted in the United States. In 1992, the first genetically modified food (a tomato, engineered to be firmer for longer) was approved for commercial production by the US Department of Agriculture.  That same year, the FDA ruled that genetically modified foods were considered not inherently dangerous (safe until proven otherwise) and such foods were given GRAS status (Generally Recognized As Safe). This essentially gave companies free range to create, sell and hide products that were not thoroughly tested for safety.

Apparently, you can thank Dan Quayle. The FDA ruling was declared a part of Quale's "Regulatory Relief" agenda. This was a rare example of down-regulating from a governmental perspective, and an unfortunately one at that. This initiative of regulatory relief concerning GMOs, by the way, went against scientific consensus at the time. So, since no companies are required to preform safety testing, and many companies even forbid the safety testing of their crops, data on GMO products is limited. However, we do have some evidence to suggest that at the very least, GMOs haven't delivered on their promises to provide better crop yields, increased nutritional value and draught-tolerance. A project that started with wholesome claims about supposed virtues of GM foods, has become a highly-criticised business, wrought with regulatory failings and more recently, human safety concerns. Here is a summary of the safety of GM foods to date. We have evidence that GM salmon isn't so great (read here to see the Consumers Union report on the GM salmon), Monsanto's GM corn is causing organ failure in rats, and GM crops, like alfalfa are requiring greater amounts of more toxic pesticides, which ideally people would avoid eating anyways. And these additional pesticides that GM foods require, are creating superweeds that are devastating farms, just as icing on the cake. And the negative impacts of GM crops doesn't end there. There are environmental concerns as well. Here are some more.

The odds are against the American public. The Obama administration recently appointed a couple of GM food advocates powerful FDA positions. And because GM foods are already a deep-seeded part of our food supply, its not a matter of just calling them out, but then actually getting them out that is going to be a challenge. 95% of all soy grown in the US last year was genetically modified and two thirds of the corn and cotton was as well. Cotton, keep in mind is often used for its cottonseed oil in processed foods as a fat source. GM foods are essentially ubiquitous in our food system, even "natural" foods contain them.

You can do your best to eat a standard diet while avoiding GMOs by utilizing tips about how to understand packaged-food labeling, but the only sure way at this point in time to avoid GMOs is to buy and eat exclusively organic foods. Trends in Europe show that GM labeling drives products off the market; lets hope thats true! To see how you can get involved in the fight against GM foods, check out the Non-GMO Project and Millions Against Monsanto, and keep checking out Innate Response's Facebook page and Twitter feed for the latest.

Labels: FDA, GMO, herbicides, monsanto, non-GMO, pesticides