How the U.S. manages to waste $165 billion in food each year

By Brad Plumer , Updated: August 22, 2012

Each year, about 40 percent of all food in the United States goes uneaten. It’s just tossed out or left to rot. And that’s a fairly large waste of resources. All that freshwater and land, all that fertilizer and energy — for nothing. By one recent estimate, Americans are squandering the equivalent of $165 billion each year by rubbishing so much food.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/08/22/how-food-actually-gets-wasted-in-the-united-states/?print=1

When we consider the rogue's gallery of devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporations, we generally come up with outfits like Microsoft, Bechtel, AIG, Halliburton, Goldman-Sachs, Exxon-Mobil and the United States Senate. Yet somehow, Monsanto, arguably the most devilish, over-sized, greedy and disproportionately powerful corporation in the world has been able to more or less skulk between the raindrops -- only a household name in households where documentaries like Food Inc. are regarded as light Friday evening entertainment. My house, for example. But for the most part, if you were to ask an average American for their list of sinister corporations, Monsanto probably wouldn't make the cut.

It should.

Founded by Missouri pharmacist John Francis Queeny in 1901, Monsanto is literally everywhere. Just about every non-organic food product available to consumers has some sort of connection with Monsanto.

Anyone who can read a label knows that corn, soy and cotton can be found in just about every American food product. Upwards of 90% of all corn, soybeans and cotton are grown from genetically engineered seeds, also known as genetically modified organisms (GMOs). These genetically enhanced products appear in around 70% of all American processed food products. And Monsanto controls 90% of all genetically engineered seeds. In other words, Monsanto controls -- and owns patents on -- most of the American food supply.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/02/04/monsanto-the-evil-corporation-in-your-refrigerator/

As the battle to get genetically engineered foods (or GMOs) labeled in California — a battle that could very well have an impact on labeling nationwide — heats up, Big Food and Big Ag are working in concert to push back to the tune of $25 million. The fight centers around Proposition 37, the ballot initiative from the Right to Know Campaign that will go to vote in November.

If it passes, the result would be no small change. As Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott wrote recently:

Since GM corn, soy, sugar beets, and cotton (the oil part) are processed into sweeteners, fats, and other additives that suffuse the US food system, the initiative would require the labeling of something like 80 percent of all non-organic processed food sold in supermarkets.

As you can see in the chart below, The “Big 6” pesticide makers (BASF, Bayer, Dow, Dupont, Monsanto, and Syngenta) are putting up big money — especially Monsanto and Dupont (full name E. I. Dupont de Nemours). That’s because all of the Big 6 either produce GMO seeds themselves, or pesticides that work in concert with the seeds, so they have the biggest vested interest in seeing GMO proliferation fly under the radar of most Americans.

The names behind processed foods are also getting in on the fight — like PepsiCo, whose many sub-brands sell many foods and beverages that contain GMO high-fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, etc. So are the companies behind quite a few “health food brands” — from Kashi to Gardenburger to Silk. In fact, the Cornucopia Institute just released a handy shopping guide to help eaters keep their dollars from going to help oppose Prop 37.

Where is the money going, exactly? Many of these companies are paying the same consultants who worked for the tobacco industry to create “astroturf,” or fake grassroots groups that will do their best to make it look like there’s a big crowd of citizens who think labeling is a bad idea. And they’ll undoubtedly convince many voters. This Reuters article that ran yesterday predicts a close battle.

Here’s a breakdown of the 20 largest donors as of Wednesday, Aug. 15:

A year five student who made a discovery about a new kind of link between protein and eggs was among those honoured at last night's Eureka Prize ceremony for excellence in science.

Inspiration can come from unexpected places, and for Ignatius Fox it came when his chickens suddenly laid bigger eggs after breaking into the worm farm.

"So we thought that the worms would give protein to them so we tried giving protein to give the big eggs and it worked," Ignatius said.

The student, from Oyster Bay Public School in Sydney's south, received the top honour at the awards in Sydney for a short science film made by a primary school student.

Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, who presented the award, thinks the student's insight puts him ahead of many adults.

"So we've got an 11-year-old person who's made an observation, accidental observation, then formed a hypothesis and then tested it out as opposed to certain radio jocks who'll say, gee, it was warm now and it's colder tonight, therefore there's no such thing as global warming," he said.

Global warming did not play much of a role in the awards but another, lesser-known global issue was front and centre.

Dr Dana Cordell was part of a team that won an award for research into sustaining the dwindling global supply of phosphorus, which is an essential ingredient in fertiliser.

"The good news is we can avert a crisis," Dr Cordell said.

"We will need to recover phosphorus from all organic waste and that includes food waste, human excreta, manure, crop waste.

"At the same time we'll also need to dramatically increase the efficiency of our current food systems."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/eureka-moment-for-fox-in-the-henhouse/4229392

HEALTHBEAT: Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but it’s key reason consumers buyBy Associated Press, Published: September 4

WASHINGTON — Patient after patient asked: Is eating organic food, which costs more, really better for me?

Unsure, Stanford University doctors dug through reams of research to find out — and concluded there’s little evidence that going organic is much healthier, citing only a few differences involving pesticides and antibiotics.

Eating organic fruits and vegetables can lower exposure to pesticides, including for children — but the amount measured from conventionally grown produce was within safety limits, the researchers reported Monday.

Nor did the organic foods prove more nutritious.

“I was absolutely surprised,” said Dr. Dena Bravata, a senior research affiliate at Stanford and long-time internist who began the analysis because so many of her patients asked if they should switch.

“There are many reasons why someone might choose organic foods over conventional foods,” from environmental concerns to taste preferences, Bravata stressed. But when it comes to individual health, “there isn’t much difference.”

Her team did find a notable difference with antibiotic-resistant germs, a public health concern because they are harder to treat if they cause food poisoning.

Specialists long have said that organic or not, the chances of bacterial contamination of food are the same, and Monday’s analysis agreed. But when bacteria did lurk in chicken or pork, germs in the non-organic meats had a 33 percent higher risk of being resistant to multiple antibiotics, the researchers reported Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

That finding comes amid debate over feeding animals antibiotics, not because they’re sick but to fatten them up. Farmers say it’s necessary to meet demand for cheap meat. Public health advocates say it’s one contributor to the nation’s growing problem with increasingly hard-to-treat germs. Caroline Smith DeWaal, food safety director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, counted 24 outbreaks linked to multidrug-resistant germs in food between 2000 and 2010.

The government has begun steps to curb the nonmedical use of antibiotics on the farm.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/healthbeat-is-organic-healthier-study-says-not-so-much-but-its-key-reason-consumers-buy/2012/09/04/90613076-f660-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_print.html

The difference between organic and non organic is far more than the "nutritional value" which can appear to be the same... For example there is also "taste" and what I call "elegance"... Elegance is devised as an organically grown produce is often less "gross"  than the intensely grown farm produce — which often is tougher and tasteless, through force feeding and liberal usage of pesticides and herbicides. As well the organic food produce does not kill insects and as such respects the natural processes in which bees act as a pollinator for example.  The problem posed by the antibiotics are numerous and we've only seen the tip of the iceberg so to speak... In "organically" grown food, there is no boosters, nor is there antibiotics that can throw the future of medicine at risk...