Food Babe Family - Header

Is Butter Secretly Ruining Your Health?

Growing up, butter was an absolute staple in my household. We thankfully never got into the margarine craze because my mother believed that butter was good for the brain. Turns out, she was right about that and scientists have now concluded that butter is actually good for you in other areas too. It’s high in a compound call CLA that protects you from tumor growth and cancer, is not inflammatory like man-made oils from corn, canola or soy, and provides a nice dose of Omega 3 fatty acids, if you get it from the right source. But finding the right source can be tricky given all the buzz words and fancy marketing these days. Choosing the wrong type of butter can secretly ruin your health without you even knowing it! Here’s a look at what’s really going on and how to choose the healthiest butter for you and your family. 

Beware of Monsanto Butter

Slide1

***Updated Graphic: Shortly after this blog post was published, Smart Balance announced they would go Non-GMO***

I call conventional butter “Monsanto Butter,” because it comes from cows fed almost entirely genetically engineered or GMO grains and Monsanto is the largest producer of GMOs.

Conventionally raised cows are most commonly fed GMO corn and soy, however, some farmers fatten up their feed with additional sugar from GMO sugar beets and cottonseed. Cotton is the most toxic crop because it isn’t treated as a food crop but as a textile (it has less regulation.) And then conventional dairy cow feed is sometimes fortified with additional protein, Omega 3 fatty acids and CLA from GMO rapeseed (canola) because the cows are not getting these nutrients naturally from the grass. GMO alfalfa hay is also commonly fed to cows. So basically, conventionally raised cows are almost entirely getting their food from GMOs – food that was created in a laboratory, that hasn’t been tested long term, but has produced horrific results in several alarming animals studies

Over 49% of all GMO corn is fed to animals or livestock. Only 2% of the GMO soybeans grown are actually fed to humans, the other 98% get fed to animals. Those figures are pretty scary once you consider the astronomical amounts of herbicides being sprayed on these GMO crops and what they are doing to the increase cancer rates, harm the environment and ourselves.

Land O’Lakes = Monsanto Butter

Land O’ Lakes was a staple in my household growing up. We’d use the whipped butter like it was nobody’s business – my mom would use it on her infamous parathas (Indian stuffed flat bread), in countless desserts and to make homemade ghee. Once I found out what was really happening at Land O’Lakes, my Mom and I had a little chat. I explained to her that Land O’Lakes is owned by a pro-GMO company called Dean Foods. Land O’Lakes co-developed genetically engineered alfalfa, directly contributing to the GMO animal feed supply. I also explained that Land O’Lakes contributed nearly $100,000 to the “No on I-522 Lobby” – the bill to label GMOs in Washington State. This is all on top of the fact that Land O’Lakes is not organic, raises their cows with growth hormones linked to cancer, antibiotics and harmful pesticide ridden GMO feed. I told my Mom she has to stop buying Land O’Lakes if we are going to change this world! 

Knowing all these facts, plus the health risks of consuming GMOs, my Mom finally asked “what butter can I buy?” Well there are many brands out there that are light years ahead of Land O’Lakes. Here’s a Butter Buying Guide that will help you (and my Mama) navigate the butter aisle next time you hit the market:

Slide2Updated Graphic: Removed Smart Balance From Chart

How to Choose The Most Nutritious Butter

  1. Organic – First and foremost, look for organic butter. This will ensure there are no growth hormones, antibiotics, harmful pesticides and GMOs being fed to the cows. Growth hormone or rbGH that is used to raise cows conventionally is linked to cancer and often accumulates in highest concentration in animal fat. One organic brand I’m suspicious of however, is Horizon, they are owned by Dean Foods (the same company that owns Land O’Lakes). The Cornucopia Institute has filed complaints for labeling their product organic while maintaining factory farm production methods. I won’t buy Horizon organic for that reason. 
  2. Grass-fed – Grass-fed or pastured raised cows are going to be more nutritious than cows raised with grains. Remember, the highest amounts of the most beneficial CLA and Omega 3 fatty acids naturally come from grass-fed cows. Also grass-fed cows produce butter with 50 percent more vitamin A and E and 400 percent more beta carotene (which gives the grass-fed butter a deeper yellow color). 
  3. Ghee – Ghee is clarified butter where all the proteins, milk solids and lactose is removed. This makes the butter more digestible, concentrated with nutrients and really great for immunity building. Ghee does not need to be refrigerated, it can stay on the counter for a few months without going bad. People with dairy allergies or sensitives often do ok consuming this type of butter. Pure Indian FoodsPurity Farms  and Ancient Organics have the best offerings in that they are both high quality, organic and grass-fed.
  4. In an ideal world, you would be able to find butter that is both organic, grass-fed and no additives like Organic Valley (in the green foil wrapper) , but sometimes that’s just not the case. In that circumstance, I would go for either an organic butter or grass-fed butter like Kerrygold (please note – Kerrygold uses some grains that could be GMOs a couple of months out of the year because grass doesn’t grow year round in Ireland – they admit that 3% of their feed could contain GMOs). Choosing regular organic butter will lessen your exposure to pesticides but will also provide less nutrition since the cows will mostly be fed organic grains vs. grass. Regardless, these choices are superior choices over conventional butter and both options (in light green on the chart above) will lessen your exposure to GMOs. 
  5. Beware of butter mixes with labels like “with olive oil” – 9 times out of 10, these butters will have one or more GMO ingredients like soybean, corn or canola oil. These mixes may have questionable additives in them too – check the ingredient list just to be sure! 
  6. Don’t Eat Butter? Here are some Vegan Substitutes – If you are vegan, skip all the “butter like” or fake butter spreads like Smart Balance that contain GMO oils, artificial ingredients made from petroleum and unnecessary preservatives. Instead, choose 100% coconut oil, olive oil, red palm oil (that is sustainably harvested from Ecuador and does not hurt the rainforest) or hemp oil instead. Also coconut manna, or butter works well too, when slightly heated it spreads just like butter. (These are also much healthier than organic spreads like Earth Balance that are usually a combo of inflammation causing oils). 

butter substitutes

Sharing the truth is the first step in changing the food system. If you know someone who is buying Monsanto butter, please share this information with them. Our choices can really change the marketplace, make us healthier  and change companies decisions to use these unhealthy ingredients. 

Much Love, 

Food Babe  

 

Food Babe Family - Book
Food Babe Grocery Guide

Sign Up For Updates

And Get A FREE Healthy Grocery Guide Sent To You Now!

Find out what to buy and where at the top grocery stores near you

Posts may contain affiliate, sponsorship and/or partnership links for products Food Babe has approved and researched herself. If you purchase a product through an affiliate, sponsorship or partnership link, your cost will be the same (or at a discount if a special code is offered) and Food Babe will benefit from the purchase. Your support is crucial because it helps fund this blog and helps us continue to spread the word. Thank you.

863 responses to “Is Butter Secretly Ruining Your Health?

  1. I am traveling but will try to answer some points several of you have put forth but briefly.

    Farmers don’t “douse” any pesticide. That term implies careless and reckless. We can afford neither when it comes to pesticide application.

    I am not at all anti-organic.

    The honeybee situation is very serious and a top priority in our industry. Exposure to pesticides, the neonic class, is listed as a possible cause of honeybee decline along with numerous other natural causes. No other pesticides have been mentioned as possible causes nor has GMO technology.

    1. I posted this earlier concerning the bee situation, but again:

      …”Two prominent examples, imidacloprid and clothianidin, are used as seed treatments in hundreds of crops, and virtually all of today’s genetically engineered Bt corn is treated with neonicotinoids.”

      Bt corn is GMO, as you know. And we don’t really know if all the additional Roundup/glyphosate could be factoring in as well.

      1. I have been in meetings where the EPA person in charge of investigatng the honeybee situation has presented the information his group has to date. Roundup or GMO has never been mentioned as even a remote possibility. The pesticides you mentioned have been. The solution to this may include doing away with this class of pesticide but the fact is that the jury is still out. Objective science will eventually come up with answers. You shouldn’t jump to conclusions.

    2. Well, the insecticides are part of the “techonology”, are they not? They need all those additional chemicals for their GMO “techonology” to be effective – and it seems that they will be needing more and stronger chemicals as some weeds are becoming resistant to current “technology” chemicals like Roundup/glyphosate. It’s just common sense that all these chemicals being poured onto our natural environment could and will have an impact on natural ecosystems. Also don’t forget the issue of massive monocultures of mostly GMO crops which also disrupt natural ecosystems, and this is part of it – and GMOs are part of that. Short-term economic gain is the priority, not the long term health of ecosystems, the planet, us and all other living creatures.

      Not going to put all my trust in the EPA either (putting it kindly). And, sadly, these days science isn’t always objective.

      1. Pesticides aren’t part of GMO technology. The US has one of the safest, reliable and affordable

      2. Jenna,
        Pesticides aren’t part of GMO technology. You keep trying to tell me what’s going on on farms in this country. I have been boots on the ground on my farm for over 30 years and grew up on the same farm before I started running it. I know what’s going on out here. I wonder if your statements are based on what you read or what you see? You are right when you say economic gain is a priority. Tell me in what business it is not. Economic gain is the reason why we aren’t out here pouring massive amounts of pesticides into the environment as you say we are. Cutting expenses where ever possible is an aspect of making money and the judicious use of pesticides is a huge way to cut costs. Pesticides are also getting safer. Roundup is far safer than the herbicides it replaced. The insecticides you mention as a possible cause of honey bee problems replaced a couple of extremely dangerous, highly toxic pesticides. You want a pesticide free world. I understand that. However you should keep in mind the places around the world that are pesticide free. When you travel to those places you have to get all kinds of shots to prevent diseases that we don’t have here. Life expectancy in those places is far lower age wise than here. Pesticides, when used carefully and according to label, have been far more beneficial than harmful. Economic gain is what leads the organic food production industry to try to get you to believe otherwise.

    3. Okay, well if pesticides aren’t specifically part of the “technology”, we know herbicides are (like glyphosate/Roundup) big time. Not so different – you’re twisting things a bit here. And those neonicotinoids ARE sprayed on GMO corn – even if it wasn’t developed as part of the “technology”

      “Corn is far from the only crop treated by neonicotinoids, but it is the largest use of arable land in North America, and honey bees rely on corn as a major protein source. At least 94% of the 92 million acres of corn planted across the U.S. this year will have been treated with either clothianidin or thiamethoxam (another neonicotinoid).”

      You’re one farmer (apparently?), and you have one opinion. You’re accepting everything you’ve been ‘told.’ And actually, I grew up close to two farms (one dairy, and one crops and livestock) so I know a little something about it. I know they weren’t having to use all these herbicides that has become so common with the GMO “techonology”.

      “Over the last 15 years, U.S. corn cultivation has gone from a crop requiring little-to-no insecticides and negligible amounts of fungicides, to a crop where the average acre is grown from seeds treated or genetically engineered to express three different insecticides (as well as a fungicide or two) before being sprayed prophylactically with RoundUp (an herbicide) and a new class of fungicides that farmers didn’t know they “needed” before the mid-2000s.”

      I said these biotech companies are focused on short-term economic gain….ONLY. Of course any business is about profit and economic gain – for me and my business too. Hello. The issue is when companies have no interest in the health and safety effects of their products for people, the planet etc., and aren’t accountable. It’s unethical to do business this way. It’s an old and dying way of doing business.

      I feel bad for you. You’ve bought into the GMO rhetoric without looking further. It’s all safe, harmless, beneficial as you’ve been told. There is more to this then you’ve been ‘told’. And, btw, if genetically altering food and seeds was shown to truly be safe (we can’t know actually without long term studies), and not use excessive amounts of these horrendous chemicals, then perhaps there could be benefit to them. It’s not that I have an inherent issue with it, just the disgusting way it’s being done. And here’s a simple question….why are GMOs banned or stringently regulated in most of Europe and other nations? Are their concerns just made up?

      Sure an herbicide and pesticide free world would be great, but I’m concerned about the massive amounts being used now. Chemicals we’re told are perfectly safe for us and the environment.

      “…and in the space of a decade, U.S. corn acreage undergoes a ten-fold increase in average insecticide use. By 2007, the average acre of corn has more than three systemic insecticides — both Bt traits and a neonicotinoid. Compare this to the early 1990s, when only an estimated 30-35% of all corn acreage were treated with insecticides at all.”

      1. Jenna,
        You are just full of misinformation or I guess full of the misuse of information. You keep trying to link GMO crops with pesticides, like before GMO we didn’t use pesticides. That is completely false. You are the one twisting what I’m saying. And you keep putting quotation marks around some of your statements without referencing your source. I am not trying to misrepresent what we do on our farms and I will ask you to not misrepresent either which is what you are doing because you really don’t know what you are talking about even though you grew up next to a couple of farms. Fact and science is on my side. You have opinion and speculation. Your use of terms like “horrendous” and “disgusting” is your opinion. Bio-tech companies are taking a huge chance if they know that what they are producing is really bad for people but do it anyway because it’s just so profitable. Have you ever heard of trial lawyers? If there was any truth to what you are saying, there would be lawsuits galore, criminal prosecutions, even executions in certain countries, etc. The fact is that by 2050 the world population is supposed to be around 9 billion people. Our yields will have to triple, regardless of production method, in order to feed that many people. Organic alone won’t do it. It can’t do it now. We are always working on ways to do things better but it has to be practical and based on good sound science. I don’t see that coming from you.

      2. Ted, you said ” Bio-tech companies are taking a huge chance if they know that what they are producing is really bad for people but do it anyway because it’s just so profitable. Have you ever heard of trial lawyers?”
        Did any of those concerns change the cigarette industry’s practices???

      3. Ted, If you think you have to triple the food production you make when the population grows 50%. Then i understand why you think GMO are safe.

      4. Thomas, there are people who study and forecast based on improving economics in developing countries along with population growth. These people predict that we will need to increase production by 300%. As people make more money they want better things to eat and diets change. China and India are the two largest countries in the world population wise and their people are starting to make more money. Life just isn’t as simple as you think it is.

      1. Okay. Now I see where your source was for your above listed post. Another agenda based website. More misinformation. I know for a fact that the neonic class insecticides are being researched by EPA/FDA very closely now. If they are as toxic to bees as this article says they are and there is no way to alter usage and/or application method to reduce exposure to bees these insecticides will be banned. Again, I’ll say that Roundup is safer than the herbicides it replaced. These corn insecticides that you find so offensive replaced an insecticide called Furadan which was used prior to GMO. Read about it and see what you think. Also we used to use a pesticide with aldicarb as the active ingredient prior to these neonics and GMO. Ever heard of Bhopal, India? We don’t use it in this country any more.

        Why do you question if I’m a farmer? Is it because I communicate well? Its easy to communicate well if the facts are on my side. I have a degree in Business Administration from a major university too. I have been “told” things as you say but I also see it everyday. Being here and seeing it makes a big difference. What qualifications do you have to say what you say?

      2. The farmer who shook his head and said something about GE crops in your linked article, if he actually said what he said which I find far-fetched, has the option to purchase seed without those insecticides applied to them. I am ALWAYS asked if I want them applied to my seed. At least half the time, my answer is no.

      3. It must be true Jenna, after all it is a link to an internet site. And we all know how true everything is on the internet.

        As to Jenn’a ramblings about GMO and pesticides, The farmer (Ted) is quite right. GMO and pesticides are wholly separate technologies. That’s the whole point of GMO, to have strains resistant to various environmental impacts (drought resistance), or to enhance yield, or to resists pests.

        As to the paranoia relate to the nicitinoids, that is all it is paranoia. I’ve been reading studying that class of pesticide for a very long time. With the exception of one of the neonicitinoids, none has the water solubility required to enter that part of the plant where the bee forages. Imidiaclopirid has water solubility so low that it doesn’t remotely enter the flowering part of the plant, where the bee would be exposed.

        The one case that caused environmentalists to go whacko over the use of imidaclporid, was a case where seeds prepped with the imidacloprid coating were laid down with improper equipment next to a field where bees were actively foraging. The equipment used created essentially an aerosolized weaponized cloud/mist of imidacliprid. Now, it could have been coincidence, or it could have been a causation, but the foraging bees had high rates of not returning to their hives due to confusion, and flat out mortality. In other words, the bees came in contact with highly concentrated imidacloprid, something that cannot happen when it is used properly as a systemic or foliar insecticide.

        Lastly, imidacloprid is one of the most studied pesticides around. Numerous toxicology tests for dozens of labs have been run on imidacloprid, with the result being it is an exceptionally safe pesticide. Animal have been fed large quantities of imidacloprid with there never being any mutagenic effect. That is truly impressive But like everything, it is all in how you use it …

    4. I question whether you are what you claim you are because you have little typical comebacks for everything….Such as anything I link to is just “agenda-based” or not “objective” when it has solid, good and researched-based info. You won’t open your mind and you have what sounds almost scripted little replies. Or you just ignore what I bring up. You spin what I say and tell me I am so misinformed, and then don’t address the questions and concerns I raise.

      This is getting toxic and tiresome, just like GMO technology. I’m done. Good luck to you and your wonderful worm-free and weed-free Roundup Ready GMO crops. Agree to disagree.

      Oh, my qualifications? I’m a human being and a citizen with concerns about the health of myself, humans and the planet.

      1. And yes, I know worm-free corn is not Roundup Ready corn; worm-free is Bt corn. Just didn’t want another post from you trying to point out something I’m very well aware of.

      2. I did address the concerns and questions you raised. You just didn’t like or respect the answers of a real farmer (maybe we both have closed minds?) and some of the concerns and questions you raise have some long and technical explanations that don’t really lend themselves to this forum.

        That being said I am not anti-organic at all. I work my butt off doing what I do. Those organic farmers, if they do it right, work really hard also and I respect what they do and bring to the table. All food productions systems will have to coexist for now. Maybe technology will change to the point that organic will become doable on a much larger scale. Until then I will continue to do what I do to the best of my ability. We do have one thing in common. We are both human beings and citizens with concerns about the health of ourselves, our familes, other humans and the planet. That is one thing we can agree on.

      3. Ted you mentioned earlier that Science is on your side. I’m assuming Monsanto Science and the FDA and other federal and state agencies. I really don’t know a lot about Farms and farming and things, but I do know that from 1935 to 1977 Monsanto falsified Scientific studies on PCB’s. I know this through the court ordered release of over 500,000 company documents. There only concern was to continue to sell PCB’s. They had prepared statements to customers who called to complain about the PCB products. The federal government had known how poisonous PCB’s were and were content to allow Monsanto to handle the investigations. And yes there were lawsuits galore, one of which ended in a 700 million dollar settlement. I cannot believe anything that spews forth from Monsanto as truth and Scientific fact. They are a company hell bent on profit and the costs of thousands, if not millions of lives. And since the 1980’s, after selling their interests in the chemical industry, have taken over and dominate the agricultural business. I guess since they couldn’t poison all of us with chemicals, they are now working on poisoning us with our food.

    5. And yes, I know that worm-free corn isn’t Roundup Ready corn. I’m aware that worm-free is Bt corn with it’s convenient genetically built in pesticide. Two different GMO ‘technologies’. So you don’t have to comment and correct me on that. I’m very well aware of that.

      1. A minor faux pas in my mind compared to some of the other things I’ve read here. I hope you continue to enjoy you non-worm free corn 😉

    6. Non worm-free all the way!! I actually have to inquire at the farmer’s market now if sweet corn is GMO since GMO sweet corn was introduced into the market in 2012. I actually look for sweet corn with worms in it now. You can usually tell it’s GMO sweet corn if it doesn’t have any worms at all or the top area of the cob is all dried up – where the worms like to be.

      Non-worm free is for me!! 😉 🙂

      1. Well now you’re talkin….put a little pat of organic, non GMO butter on it and maybe some organic pepper and parsley then who cares about a few worms. You’ll never see ’em. But then if that worm had visited the GMO field right next to the organic one, you are all of a sudden eating a non-organic worm. What to do, what to do….;-)

    7. Tom, is you middle name Ted by chance?

      Thanks for all of that Tom…ted, or friend of ted? Glad to know we can continue to use those all those neonicotinoid pesticides without concern. Glad to know we can feed large quantities of imidacloprid to animals without effect (no mutagenic effect – yay!). Sounds like good stuff. It must true, Tom…we all know how true everything is on the internet, right? I guess all the information on the internet about the situation with bees and neonicotinoids, including studies, is pure bunk. BTW, Tom, you couldn’t even spell it correctly – but you’ve been studying this class of pesticides and know everything about them?

      Well with all your rambling I want to point out that GMO crops have proven to produce little to no increased yields. That’s part of the pro-GMO rhetoric and marketing, you know. And resisting pests? Farmers were fine and had ways to deal with pests in the past in the past without having to genetically insert a pesticide in the plant. Genetically built-in pesticides doesn’t seem to be wholly separate to me. And using tons and tons of herbicides is also not wholly separate.

      Here’s one little quote for you from good ole wikipedia. Good to know it’s just bunk too.

      “In 2012, several peer reviewed independent studies were published showing that neonicotinoids had previously undetected routes of exposure affecting bees including through dust, pollen, and nectar[47] and that sub-nanogram toxicity resulted in failure to return to the hive without immediate lethality,[48] the primary symptom of colony collapse disorder.[49] Research also showed environmental persistence in agricultural irrigation channels and soil.[50] These reports prompted a formal peer review by the European Food Safety Authority which stated in January 2013 that neonicotinoids pose an unacceptably high risk to bees, and that the industry-sponsored science upon which regulatory agencies’ claims of safety have relied may be flawed and contain several data gaps not previously considered. Their review concluded, “A high acute risk to honey bees was identified from exposure via dust drift for the seed treatment uses in maize, oilseed rape and cereals. A high acute risk was also identified from exposure via residues in nectar and/or pollen.”[24][51] David Goulson, an author of one of the Science studies which prompted the EESA peer review, has suggested that industry science pertaining to neonicotinoids may have been deliberately deceptive, and the UK Parliament has asked manufacturer Bayer Cropscience to explain discrepancies in evidence they have submitted to an investigation.”

      1. Tom is not Ted. Ted is not Tom. Ted is glad to see that Tom has joined the party though!

      2. First you post from the pesticide action network, a site that obviously has no conflict of interest or gross systemic bias! Then you make the error of quoting Wikipedia, a website whose accuracy is so terrible that had I followed what I read on Wikipedia, I’d literally have been dead already.

        Try reading the actual research Jenna. Instead of hysterical writings of others. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/haloxyfop-methylparathion/imidacloprid-ext.html

      3. Thanks for that information piece about imidacloprid. Is that what you mean by reading the actual research? Well, it’s not actual research, but a general info sheet on one chemical. There are other neonicotinoids, as I’m sure you know, and does this information sheet somehow show that this one pesticide is without any toxic effect? Not seeing it. The links I gave provide sound information, not sure where the hysterical writing is.

        Here’s a link to the EPA website which discusses the study that was referenced in those links and European actions taken in regards to these chemicals: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/about/intheworks/ccd-european-ban.html

        And the EPA is taking some action concerning pesticides and this issue:

        …“Multiple factors play a role in bee colony declines, including pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency is taking action to protect bees from pesticide exposure and these label changes will further our efforts,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

        The new labels will have a bee advisory box and icon with information on routes of exposure and spray drift precautions. Today’s announcement affects products containing the neonicotinoids imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The EPA will work with pesticide manufacturers to change labels so that they will meet the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) safety standard.

        In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health, showing scientific consensus that there are a complex set of stressors associated with honey bee declines, including loss of habitat, parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure.” …

        Find more info on the EPA website.

        Europeans are always more proactive regarding decisions concerning health, while the US and EPA are more wait and see. Like I said previously to Ted, the situation with the bees is likely multifactorial, but increasing amounts of pesticides are one factor; one big factor that is acknowledge to be part of this critical issue. The precautionary principle is always wise.

        You have any more actual research on this topic?

      4. Well, Jenna, you probably don’t understand it, but you didn’t cite any more research. You cited an epa statement that as part of their ongoing review process they will consider the findings of their European counterpart. As they always take in whatever available information during regular reviews (also mentioned in the release) But, you did not cite actually research. You did, however, begin using a credible source for information.

        You’ll note the epa states that they have come to many of the same conclusions as this European group, but have not taken similar actions because the error in methodology in the Eurpean work. Namely, the Eurpeans did not take into a account safety management (i.e. deliver modes, and mitigating system). That would be a pretty big methodological error on behalf of a researcher as some things are safe in one quantify but deadly in others. For example, the article this is linked to – butter would be safe in certain quantities, downright deadly if you ate and ate the stuff, and depending on how you deliver it to your body, it could rapidly kill you.

        Then you make a statement that is patently false, though I have no doubt it is a belief you hold in your reality. You say, “Europeans are always more proactive regarding decisions concerning health, while the US and EPA are more wait and see.” Truth of the matter is the US is the highest ranked country for Global Food Security. In the subcomponent categories, the US is listed 5th in food quality and safety. In contract to what you have said, Europeans are nor always more proactive regarding decisions of health….” In fact. Europe hasn’t been very proactive in regards to numerous things, They are currently, the are virtually the most indebted and overleveraged economies on earth. They make the American economy look like a walk in the park during a clear summer day. No, you are most assuredly wrong, Europe is not more proactive or capable than the US, quite the other way around.

      5. We are Bruce farmers, I don’t know much about corn, but I know some rice facts. I know that some rice farmers choose to grow organic rice for the pay out. “These hippies want bugs for big bucks, we’ll give em bugs!” I also know that you look at a field of organic rice grow Across the road from good rice, and I can’t even see why people would want to eat it! It looks sickly,
        ! it sprouts up gets bug eaten and the farmer only gets half of the crop really. Someone said to ted something about the increase In Production not needing our chemically safe crops, blah blah blah. But I know that if everyone went organic, people wouldnt get rice. We wouldn’t be able to produce enough for the demands of the world!

        Rice is grown under water until it sprouts out. The chemical is put in the water. Its not just dumped in by the tons. Its put in, in such low doses that when the rice “heads out” the chemicals arent even traceable….

      6. “If everyone went organic people wouldn’t get rice.”

        Tori, there are organic rice farmers who grow great organic rice productively, such as Lundberg: http://www.lundberg.com/Commitment/Practices.aspx

        Lundberg has been doing it well for decades. Rice was always grown organically (though not called organic, of course) until chemicals were even available. Why can’t they produce enough to feed the world?

    8. Tom, is you middle name Ted by chance?

      Thanks for all of that Tom…ted, or friend of ted? Glad to know we can continue to use those all those neonicotinoid pesticides without concern. Glad to know we can feed large quantities of imidacloprid to animals without effect (no mutagenic effect – yay!). Sounds like good stuff. It must true, Tom…we all know how true everything is on the internet, right? I guess all the information on the internet about the situation with bees and neonicotinoids, including studies, is pure bunk.

      BTW, Tom, you couldn’t even spell it correctly – but you’ve been studying this class of pesticides and know everything about them?

      Well with all your rambling I want to point out that GMO crops have proven to produce little to no increased yields. That’s part of the pro-GMO rhetoric and marketing, you know. And resisting pests? Farmers were fine and had ways to deal with pests in the past in the past without having to genetically insert a pesticide in the plant. Genetically built-in pesticides doesn’t seem to be wholly separate to me. And using tons and tons of herbicides is also not wholly separate.

    9. Just because your connotation of douse means carelessness, the denotation still means to use a lot of something.

      1. And as population grows, food production is not the biggest issue. The number one resource wasted in America is food.

        http://www.epa.gov/foodrecovery/

        And for countries who are having trouble producing food, they are social and political problems at the fore front. Giving GMO’s to unstable political systems likely will not help the root issue.

      2. I use as little as possible Robin. The laws of economics apply even to farmers. People who have a yard have a mindset that if a little is good then more is even better. Commercial farmers don’t do that. One application of Roundup on my farm costs me $30,000. I use it only when absolutely necessary and only where I need it. I also have an independent consultant who recommends every application and at times university specialists help me with BMPs to determine when I apply any pesticide.

        I was in Pakistan a little over a year ago visiting with Pakistan cotton farmers who said their cotton yields had almost doubled since the introduction of GMO technology in that country about 5 years ago. Worms were destroying their crop. Cotton farming was about to be a thing of the past in Pakistan where millions of people are employed in the textile industry. Wonder if the cotton industry had collapsed if the political situation would have improved or worsened? I disagree with your post.

      3. Interesting when I reference the growing population and world hunger you refer cotton. You are comparing apples to oranges. I am talking about the claim that we need GMO’s to feed the word, not India’s textile industry.

      4. Apples to oranges? I gave an example of how GMOs were effective in an unstable political environment and it did help the situation according to real, working people who live there. You said it wouldn’t and I know factually that your claim is incorrect. People need money to buy food. No job, no money, no good food is kind of the way it is especially in a country like Pakistan. Because these people kept their jobs they could spend more for feeding themselves and their families. Most people don’t want to farm so buying food is the option. Food production doesn’t happen in the grocery store Robin. It is a complex system and GMO crops are a part of the system used for many different purposes. Cottonseed is a food crop BTW. There is more cotton seed weight-wise that comes from a finished bale of cotton fiber than actual fiber. It is used to feed cows and fish for sure, probably some others. It also produces a good quality vegetable oil. I know what I’m talking about if you want to continue.

  2. according to Kerrygold’s webpage,

    “All Kerrygold butter, cheese and milk products are free of genetically modified ingredients.”

    So WHY do you say they have up to 3% GMOs? That seems completely false and I would like to know where you got that information.

    1. Kristen, the cows in Ireland MAY be fed up to 3% of their supplemental winter diet with imported grain that contains GMOs. They state that on the website. I think they are meaning nothing is added to their products with GMOs. The cows are grass-fed on lush grass for 90% of their diet, but during a short period in the winter they have to be fed with supplemental feed which includes hay (dried grass) and some grain. This can include European grain (non-GMO), but they also import some grain that is GMO. From what I read, the supplemental winter diet is mostly hay, and about 25% grain (which may or may not be GMO). So the cows COULD be eating up to 3% GMO grain, this is from what I have read on their site. I still use Kerrygold and feel good about it, it’s easy to find and pretty reasonably priced.

      1. Can you please provide the reference on the kerrygold website which quotes the 3% figure?

      2. There are many types of grains besides corn and soy that are popular in feeding livestock, like wheat, barley and oats that are non-GMO. The other thing with grains that are produced using GMO’s is that those traits are not transferred to what consumes it. They are specific traits to the growing plants, for the production of growing plants. A cow that is fed corn, processes that corn internally, it doesn’t then produce corn again. Any trait that is in the corn, is not then passes on through the milk or meat.

      3. Elan, do you have references to show that “traits are not transferred” to animals (or people) that consume GMO grains? What do you mean by traits anyway? And what about all the chemical residues used to grow these GMO crops., and the altered genes themselves. It has no effect on any creature who consumes it? There are studies that show otherwise. I do not want to be eating dairy or other products from animals consuming GMO grain, or minimizing it as much as I can. Plus, the fact that grain is not a natural food for cows, and cows on pasture are healthier and produce healthier products.

        And to Eleanor, you can find that information in the FAQa on the Kerrygold website.

      4. Hi Jenna,

        Thanks for your response. Problem is I can’t find that reference on the kerrygold website? I’ve checked and it does not say anything about 3% of anything……please quote your source! I’d really appreciate it and will add credit to the rest of your article. I’m a lover of kerrygold and use it all the time. Yum yum.

      5. It’s on the kerrygoldusa.com website in the FAQs, you can find it.

        “What percent of this supplementary feed is from GM sources?

        Irish cows benefit from the abundance of grass which grows on our farms. The vast majority of an Irish cow’s diet, almost 90%, is from rich, natural grass. This is much higher than in most other countries. It is made possible because of the perfect farming conditions enjoyed on the island of Ireland. The balance, normally about 10%, of the cow’s diet is made up of grain and supplements.

        Our ongoing discussions with the grain and dairy industry have established that of this approximately 10% grain/supplements, approximately 20 to 25% may be from GM sources. This means that approximately 3% of a cow’s total typical annual diet may be from GM sources.

        GM is a relatively new issue in an Irish context. We are taking an active role in exploring the potential and challenges around using GM free grain in the Irish dairy industry. Supplementary feeds are important for the health of the animals. They are used to give the cows a healthy and balanced blend of nutrients, providing them with protein, energy and fiber.

        We can confirm that Kerrygold butter and cheese do not contain GM ingredients.

        Which of the grain/supplementary feed ingredients are from GM sources?

        Grain which is sourced locally in Ireland or from the EU is GM free. When combined with the grass in their diet, this means that approximately 97% of an Irish cow’s diet is GM free.

        Ireland is a small island and while local crops such as barley and wheat make up a large part of the supplements to the cow’s diet, there is not enough land to grow sufficient barley and wheat crops to supply the Irish dairy producers. Because of this some ingredients used in the supplements are imported.

        Where the potential for GM arises is when soy and distillers grain are used as part of the supplement. It is not possible to source all supplementary feed/grain ingredients from the EU due to availability issues. However, these ingredients do comply with EU and Irish legislative requirements on labeling and traceability.

        We can confirm that Kerrygold butter and cheese do not contain GM ingredients.”

  3. To my concerns this GMO argument is not winnable! These added ingredients are going to be added,and then increased no matter what we do,what we say! We can cry foul till we’re dead and they’ll still put lead in our children’s toys! What I do see
    as a concern is that we need to fight back with natural ways of getting our food supplies established. Such as,we need to put more money into delaying anymore road or street construction. More money into fighting the neighborhood sprawl we see every where! I live near Janesville,WI and even tho we lost the GM plant,and thousands of their jobs and security,there’s still a massive amount of housing growth taking place with nobody to fill them! We need to stop this almost anyway we can but mostly by our voting,our demonstrating,and writing strong letters to our elected representatives.

  4. Thank you for this info. I make an effort to limit dairy and eggs, but some things taste best with butter. Food Babe, will you please give recommendations on eggs?!

  5. Do you trust that Trader Joe’s labeled foods are nonGMO? I wish they would label it since they do say that all products with their label is nonGMO, but I am not sure that I trust them.

  6. Any thoughts on the butter from Costco (Kirkland brand)? If this has already been answered in the pages of comments, I apologize for asking again . . .

    1. Yes . . . I am replying to my own post, to say that I did go back through all the previous pages to find out what, if anything, could be said about Kirkland brand butter, so no need for anyone to reply any further. Thanks!!

  7. Can you please list the products in the middle two green columns; the Non organic grass fed and the organic grain fed columns? You may have done so, but wow there are a lot of responses to go through to find those.
    Thanks for your commitment to healthy foods.

  8. I asked about Challenge Butter way back in mid- Jan, (saw several others asking, too) and not sure I’ve seen a reply. Is it a workable option?? thanks!

  9. I respect what organic farmers are trying to do. However this article explains the problems with organic. The key word in agriculture these days is “sustainable.” It’s a nice word and sounds good. I do take it seriously and strive to make sure I am sustainable and getting more so all the time. Sustainable farming must also be economically sustainable. Organic isn’t there yet. Maybe one day.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303997604579242722533288250?KEYWORDS=organic+farm&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303997604579242722533288250.html%3FKEYWORDS%3Dorganic%2Bfarm

    1. Ted, you can either get with the times or you can go the way of the dinosaur. People are getting more informed about their food, we don’t trust the FDA anymore. The fact is most organic foods are being eaten directly by humans not grown to be fed to animals. If you are a farmer that grows cereal grains then people are eating your crops, so you may find yourself out of work a bit sooner. Crops intended for direct human consumption are coming under closer scrutiny by consumers. Crops being fed to livestock have seen less scrutiny for now. Organic horticulture is the future, go to any farmers market around and see the folks clamoring for organic foods. I lived in farm country for years and worked summers on a beet farm. I watched entire families succumb to cancer. Everyone of my neighbors on my road died of cancer. The beet farm I worked on had the father and son both get cancer, the son lived after being cured only to die from another cancer later. The father died. My whole life I have lived under the premise of “follow the money”. Who profits when things are sold? Who profits from information? You need to be asking yourself this. By the way, I worked summers on the beet farm to get my college degree in Biochemistry, so I consider myself well versed in the dangers of toxins in the food chain.

      1. You may have a degree in biotechnology but you skipped reading comprehension. I am not attacking organic farms. Try again Einstein

      2. It’s Biochemistry, not Biotechnology. You are slipping, thanks for the personal attack though. If you are pro chemical you are anti organic, sorry that is fact.

      3. No, we are not going toward a world of all organic crops. The world would starve. Also, Jim, you sound like Bush ,”if you are pro chemical, you are anti organic.” “You’re either for us, or against us.” Congratulations Jim, maybe you can be another Bush.

    2. Nice article Ted. THX for posting. We have an organic operation providing feed to organic/humane beef and milk production. Organic can work selectively. On the other hand, if you are operating organic citrus, and you get hit with greening …. well, there goes our organic status. So, now the organic premium you had evaporates, and you are stuck at the mercy of commodity aggregators for the next 3 to 5 years. Same thing on the grains, you get that uplift and catch more of the value chain, but god help you if you get hit with something that spinosyn, or another organic won’t kill.

  10. I have an unlimited supply of cleaner than clean butter, thanks to my Thermomix! Pure, grass- fed cow’s full cream milk….. and a few seconds later, I have pure butter and pure buttermilk!
    I’m not sure if any other mixers or blenders can do it but I can vouch for my Thermomix!

  11. Just a question I use a store brand butter is there a way to tell who actuall makes it? it does have a address but the name is the store.

  12. I stumbled on this site and was pleasantly surprised! Not only was it informative, but encouraging. Two persons of obvious different opinions were able to carry on a conversation we all could enter into or simply enjoy. Intelligent conversation at its best. Thank you both, Ted and Jen, for allowing all of us to see cooperation in information. I believe a think tank with the two of you would be beneficial to Both of your agendas. Good day to all.

    1. Hey thanks! I appreciate that. Ted seems pretty cool, and I didn’t feel attacked, but a bit frustrated at times (like talking to a genetically modified brick wall at times). 😉

      Long live non worm free!

  13. Monsanto Rules. They own Congress and the EPA.
    Just check who they hire for board members.
    At one time they wanted to stop or regulate back yard gardening unless you used their products.
    We are fighting an uphill battle.

  14. There are not a lot of easy answers. We would all like natuaral products grown without insecticide, herbicieds, fertilizers, or genetic modifications. We want all of that along with low prices. Most of all, we all want our way.

    If the world population was in the millions, rather than the billions, this would be more possible. So there is the root of our problem – too many mouths to feed.

  15. What if I bought my own cow and fed it organic grasses from non-gmo seed grown in my backyard. Then milked the cow and made my own butter. Would the butter then be safe?

  16. To those quoting the EPA and FDA as trusted sources of science, their leaders are politicians appointed by politicians. And politicians usually toe the line to maintain their position or power, or to gain power. Does anyone believe the NIST report on the 911 attacks? What about the FDA? Research Donald Rumsfeld’s history with G.D. Serle, the FDA and how he got Aspartame approved over the objections of scientists. Do you really believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics when they say the unemployment rate is really only 6.7% or that the inflation rate is only 1.5%? Did you believe GWB when he said Saddam Hussein had WMD or was harboring Al Qaeda? Did you believe our UN Ambassador and our State Dept when they said the Libyan Ambassador Stevens was killed by people pissed off at some obscure video on the internet? Do you believe that the CIA stops drugs from flowing into the USA? Did you believe our military when they said that Pat Tillman was killed by enemy fire? Did you believe the NSA when they said they were not spying on Americans?
    Exposing our government’s lies is a huge industry – because there is so much to expose.

    1. Exactly. The more I read, the more I question. Definite answers are still hard to come by. Certainly plenty of inconsistencies to point out as you have here. All the more reason to eat things to can make certain are only food and not food plus chemicals – even if the feds say it is safe.

  17. Congratulations Food Babe!

    You have garnered enough attention from Monsanto for them to sick their shills onto your site. You have reached a new level and congrats to the paychecks of Ted, Tom, and possibly Herb.

    Good job FoodBabe, keep up the good work.

    1. If what you say is true, Monsanto owes me some money. I’m no shill for them. I offer a different viewpoint. The sky is not falling.

    1. correction: keeping butter or any high fat foods away from our diet would be the healthy choice.

  18. From a perch atop a heap of composting horticultural hypotheses my perspective is a tad different than most. Resting my feet atop that steaming warmth gives me joy, satisfaction, and dread. It took the better part of a half-century to amass and climb.
    My heap mounds high on the heaps of others. I am a 3rd generation horticulturalist.

    At the turn of the 2oth century granddad converted a horse pasture made obsolete by Henry Ford (he’d been in the business of manufacturing Morgan horses – sort of the sport-utility vehicle of 1900). into a horticultural experimental site. For decades his experimental fields were where local government scientists farmed out the crop varieties they wanted to test. Dad grew up at his feet amid 90 types of apple, various strains of sorghum and untold other agricultural hopefuls. Despite concerted effort aimed at cultivating a medical doctor he defied that trellising to be an horticulturalist and landscape architect. The same fate befell me.

    Granddad’s agriculture began in the ostensibly organic 1900s – and died with him at the end of WW2. Dad’s agriculture began just before that paradigm-changer then continued into the 1990s – a period that began with blind enthusiasm about potent new chemicals (mainly mid-wived by those who fueled our mid-century holocaust) the work of those who’d repurposed their pesticide ‘Zyklon-B’ into genocide. and developed Sarin and its cousin Malathion – just some of the cursed spoils of the war.
    Dad’s horticulture was inundated by repurposed chemical families and the spin that encouraged, more than any others, Americans to rely on the kindness of chemicals.

    Dad, by 1951, had waded through reams of data and arrived at the conclusion that a guy named Rodale was onto something. And dug deeper. He recognized that the same folks who couldn’t be expected to know the difference between CaF2 and NaF couldn’t be expected to make head nor tails of the complexity of metabolism.
    He’d have to do his best to chew the facts for them (much as Ms. Babe here does).

    He recognized corn and roses as prime candidates for studying assorted agricultural systems – roses especially being among the most thoroughly hybridized plant types.
    In the first picture ever to show me upright I was planting a rose bush using a spade that towered over me. Horticultural pamphlets were my coloring books – Rodale’s ‘Organic Gardening’ a favorite. I literally cut my teeth on organic gardening. So when the time came for adolescent rebellion I became our ‘devil’s advocate. And ran into the fact that I was illiterate in the language of science – chemistry. Luckily (like math) chemistry is essentially a language – and a simple one at that. Demystified, organic chemistry even more so (a symbol means exactly one thing and the syntactical rules are awesomely simple – and without exception). As I learned my organic chemistry it became more and more difficult to advocate on behalf of chemically enhanced ag.

    My career was centered on gently and respectfully de-programming householders and even, inadvertently, some farmers from the cult of the chemical savior.

    I never admonished food producers to change their ways. I trusted that their vested interest in the bottom line would see them minimizing the part of their bank balance they’d spread on the ground. If not the’d go broke. Or, sadly, in many instances render their soil unprofitable.

    Homeowners. Suburban homeowners.. They are the problem. My bread and butter was earned mainly from residential landscape design. From my first (1974) contract until my last (2004) it was an uphill struggle to reduce the destruction inflicted as in sanitized former farm fields single family houses sprung up like regimented fungii.

    In 1974 virtually every client wanted a small garden plot (about a quarter the size of the own their parents weeded as kids), hedges, roses, a couple of shade trees, and lawn – lots of lawn. By 1984 that veggie patch had shrunk by half again – the lawn inheriting that soil. From a net ecological plus to a net ecological minus. Because nothing on earth transpires water like grasses. Be they bamboo, corn or turf.

    A square foot of lawn transpires about 3 inches of water per week through a growing season. – a 6 to 8 feet depth – 52 gallons. A single corn plant draws 53 gallons/season.
    (A well-planned shrub or veg bed will consume 3 to 7 gallons /sq.ft. /season. Yeah..)

    A square foot of lawn will on average require 6 x the chemical intervention that most crop plants do – more even than corn. Before any of us point a finger at any farmer we’d better look out our own kitchen window. If there’s a sea of green we become hypocrites the moment we that open our mouths to condemn agricultural practices.
    No, you (or your neighbor) don’t eat those chemicals used to keep the lawn green – you, your kids, their pets, the neighbors and wildlife breath it, track it in on their feet, and otherwise become contaminated by potent chemicals employed on behalf of a thing called ‘vanity’.

    Those farmers are using them to grow a thing called food – and while only a fool would argue these chemicals ‘enhance’ foodstuffs – they do keep them arriving on grocers’ shelves in quantities and at prices that mean you don’t have to skirt the bodies of the starved dead on your way to and from golf or yoga .

    Suburbia was in its infancy in my granddad’s day, in its baby-boomer adulthood in my father’s, and has bloated into a monstrosity during the course of my 30 year career.
    Jane Jacobs got it right in the end – in her last book ‘Dark Age Ahead’ that indicts the suburb as the travesty it is. What else to call a place where people feel entitled to use 50+ gallons of water (and a lot of chemicals) a year to keep their grass green while, in urbia, apartment dwellers are admonished to install low-pressure toilets and showers.

    Statistically, 73% of those reading this blog either live in the suburbs or aspire to. They aspire to drive bigger cars farther on longer and wider stretches of paced-over land to get to and from the (by global standards) massive dwellings spaced like cookies on a sheet (that was productive farm land) built of materials that denuded entire mountain ranges for the lumber, turned those mountains to slag in making other materials. and seduced millions of acres of the very best agricultural land into growing lawn turf and not food crops. In other words 73% 0f us have actual things we can and should do to be more than a token part of the solution.

    A hint to get things started. You know what Round-Up is good for? Doing in the lawn.
    Which is a big step towards being part of the solution. Another? Turning that ground back to producing crops. An encouraging factoid? The typical suburban back yard is enough room to grow all but your family grain supply (if you grow Amaranth include grains too!) – and to export as much again. To feed some of the 3-5 million who are America’s homeless (or the tens of millions of its desperately poor). Two bigs steps.
    And then you’ll have the right to criticize others for their failings.

    Important final note: Ms. Babe hasn’t berated anyone – she’s stuck mainly to telling folks what’s essentially what. A noble pursuit. And well done. Or I’d not have spent a whole hour of my life on this anecdote. 🙂

    1. Very well done. Close to half this country doesn’t make enough money to pay income taxes. Not sure how many are on food stamps. My disappointment with this movement is that it shames people who can’t afford to pay alot more for food. Statically if you eat only organic food, you will live to the age of 80. Statically if you eat no organic food, you will live to the age of 80. If one can afford organic, non GMO then do it if it makes you feel good. Its the smug attitude that seems to come with this choice that needs to

      1. Thank you. And, sadly, so right you are.

        I hold that if we are to deem ourselves worthy of the honorific ‘civilized’ we must regain the common decency and common sense that a neanderthal took for granted. Studying the bones of those most primitive of people we find that they tended and defended those too infirm to substantially contribute to the practical needs of the community. How can we, infinitely more affluent, do less and call ourselves civil, humane, human?

        This is why I’m investing my retirement not in ecological advocacy but in anti-poverty work. Seven years practicum working with agencies like food banks solidly confirms: 1) the accuracy of your first several observations, and 2) the ugly myths abetting our essential bottom line indifference to the suffering of the poor at home and abroad.

        Seven years ago virtually all our region’s food bank clients were recipients of social assistance who fell into 2 broad overlapping categories: displaced or disabled. Here in my British Columbia 85% of all welfare recipients are acknowledged (grudgingly) by our government to be permanently disabled. Others are displaced (aka refugees) – and there’s no need to explain why they significantly overlap the disabled category.
        Social Assistance pensions have remained frozen for more than a decade – as we all know the cost of living has not. Stipends inadequate a decade ago are, well, . . ..

        Today, our bread lines are half as long again – a third of our clients ‘working poor’.
        The desperate need that drives someone to wait in line for 2 to 3 hours to get the usual bag of noodles, handful of apples, onions, and potatoes, junk food & soda – perhaps a dozen eggs, is blight and shame on a society that claims to be humane.

        Note what’s missing from that grocery bag – actual nourishing food (except for the token produce). Factor in that most of our clients suffer from crippling depression. (Imagine being so sick it’s a struggle to get out of bed, mustering the willpower to walk or ride transit on average several miles then stand in line in all sorts of weather for most of a morning – then imagine doing so on that diet. Imagine trying to plan meals for your child using those ingredients. Now try sleeping.)

        What’s missing from that thrice monthly hamper? Sound nutrition. Produce and protein. Another agency I work alongside recently got a local grocer to give them the produce they are about to throw away, as well as past date dairy products, and another 2 to 3 hour line formed as (in this case) mostly mothers accept handfuls of fruit and vegetables they will sort into overripe and edible, partly salvageable, and inedible. I’ve never heard any of them express concern about how it was grown.
        We offer them the indignity of lining up for food most readers of this blog would throw out rather than the greater indignity of rummaging through the dumpsters.

        GMO? What’s that? We want food not too rotten to eat. That’s in the ‘first world’.
        Imagine the ‘second’ and ‘third’ worlds.

        This calls to mind a scene from the life of biographer A.E. Hotchner (a scene that this grown man choking back sobs) where a desperately hungry boy eats pictures of food.

        When there are millions of Americans (and hundreds of thousands of Canadians) whose diet consists almost entirely of old bread . . . perhaps discussions of quality should be put on the back-burner til we make sure all the kids are properly fed ?

        First we make sure everyone gets three-square of all their food groups – then we improve the nuances of food quality.

        A sad, perversely ironic final note. Most of the old bread our displaced & disabled ‘dine’ on? It’s $5 designer bread too old for you to want. ‘Let them eat cake’.

        Thanks, Ted, for the opening for an anti-poverty reality-check rant. 🙂

      2. Who is shaming anybody who can’t afford to pay a lot for food? This is about information. Poverty is another issue – yes, food is part of it, but like I said before it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t look at what’s happening and what we are eating (and why).

        Why does organic have to be more expensive? Many issues with that. And is it really that much more expensive? http://www.cornucopia.org/2013/10/busting-organic-expensive-myth/

        I am careful and shop around and am able to find decent prices, and I also use the EWG dirty dozen lists to help me prioritize my shopping for organic produce (and yes, I grow a few things, and farmers’ markets are another great source for local and (usually) organic – and they are often cheaper). Why not see the good and the positive here?

      3. How does this movement shame people that can’t pay for Organic foods, please explain (this low income family would like to know).
        I myself would like to know what is in the food that i feed my family (thank you food babe ), having lost so many of family members die of CANCER and not at the age of 80.

    2. Will, that is the best post I have read on the net in a very long time. Well thought out, exceptionally articulate, a great background story interwoven with common sense. Killer post!

      1. Will what do you know about being poor and who are you to say lets give poor people crap food. Open your eyes! I was wondering do you have children? If you do, doesn’t it hurt you to feed them horrible food.
        I know there are a lot of homeless and starving children and they need to eat but why not fight for them to have good food, food that doesn’t have a chemical to make rubber or a simple apple without pesticide residue or perhaps some nice sweet corn that has not been genetically modified. Poor people deserve that right as well.

      2. Because Luz, then there will be a lot of starving people. Or, to put it more precisely, why not do what you propose? Because your proposal triggers massive starvation.

      3. Here’s a thought. I am one of those disabled persons, living on the generosity of public assistance. Want to know why I am disabled? Mostly due to the toxic chemicals in the foods I was fed for most of my life. If we start now, feeding our children healthy, non-toxic, real food, instead of all the processed non-food garbage that is the majority of most American’s diets, maybe we will end up with healthier generations to come, who don’t have to rely on public assistance, food stamps or food banks, to feed their families. We have the knowledge to reduce significantly the disabled from diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease, cancer, fibromyalgia and CFIDS. Garbage in=garbage out!

  19. Very interesting,Will ..I have to point out though that even if one wants to do the things you suggest in your second to last paragraph, HA and local authorities discourage if not penalize. Personally been ticketed for not mowing to keep lawn low. So I took all my lawn out and landscaped in native plants and was ticketed for my “weeds” being over 18″ . These were in fact purple latris, cone flowers and yes Amaranth. Even those of us that try are shot down. I did get the official to come for an educational tour of my property and did my best to educate him.

    1. A good design strategy takes into account local bylaws and the concerns of neighbors. Being familiar with local bylaws is every bit as important as knowing where pipe & wire are buried. Neighborhood concerns are easily both anticipated and confirmed. Caring about the human environment is essential to a landscape’s ultimate success.

      The researchers at Denver who made xeriscape a well-known (less well-understood) gave landscape horticulture a push away from the unsustainable American lawnscape.
      Xeriscape broke open the lawnscape ‘box’ – and high installation cost made xeriscape alternatives desirable in a way that expense alone can in modern America. Xeriscape has +/- 10% market penetration. In jurisdictions like Clark County (Las Vegas) bylaws setting limits on the percentage of a landscape covered in lawn-grass push xeriscape to 60% on new installations. Elsewhere lawn still dominates the landscape.

      The main reason is that typically xeriscapes cost about 5 x as much to install – leading to a lot of ‘DIY’ projects – not a problem unless the DIY includes design.

      An experienced environmental design consultant will find an optimal solution to the key landscape issues: attainability, maintainability, sustainability and retainability – and both utility and enjoyability. They will ensure that the landscape investment’s R.O.I. is attractive. Return on investment as measured personally, socially, ecologically as well as fiscally describes the success or failure of an environmental design.

      After getting to know the bottom line priorities of a prospective client (all by referral) I’d make clear why I eschewed rock and gravel as well as most native plants and wild flowers. Despite the first-glance obviousness of both petrascape and naturescape both were immediately ruled out. The first because it’s a commitment to either huge and permanent hand maintenance or to ongoing application of herbicide. The latter because native plants tend to also have native pests and wildflowers et al threaten to commit the neighbors to the same plant selection like it or not.

      My strategy involved creating a landscape where the plant material was allowed to grow naturally to maturity – in about 5 years time every square foot was to be well covered by foliage – layer upon layer of it down from tree canopy to ground-cover.
      The plants selected not only for appearance but for how well they work together in the ecological sense of the word. And I made it clear that after installation chemical agents were an absolute no-no – because while correcting one problem they’d be making new problems. My projects were orchestrated so that all heavy work was done by the appropriate machinery – in most cases in a single day, with the owners encouraged to do the rest of the installation themselves (to build the relationship between themselves and their private ecosystem). The region officially a desert all projects were designed to be weaned off irrigation by maturity (excepting only the most intense prolonged dry-spells). Where bylaws allowed landscape water could easily be provided for landscapes up to 1/4 acre using filtered household graywater.

      Result? Landscapes envied & admired rather than protested. Professional planning makes the difference. A lush, sustainable, enjoyable & useful landscape can be had for less than five dollars per square foot. My advice: interview every professional available in your area. I hope that’s useful. Good luck!

    1. Dear, you have to read the post and learn to do your own research from there. The Foodbabe can only give you basic info, and you take it from there.
      I doubt Brummel and Brown is from grassfed cows, nor organic.

    2. Christa,
      No butter is terrible for you if eaten in moderation. However if you really want to be safe then you should just click on the foodbabe’s advertiser links and purchase exactly what she says you should be eating. She makes money from it plus you can probably take an organic, non GMO stick of butter and lick it like a popsicle. Of course, there is a 180 degree difference of opinion about that which you can find on the internet too but nobody pays much attention here to differing ideas and opinions. Brummel and Brown sounds good and healthy so it must be.

      1. Brummel & Brown Spread :
        WATER, VEGETABLE OIL BLEND (SOYBEAN, OIL, PALM OIL, PALM KERNEL OIL, CANOLA OIL) SALT, GELATIN, NONFAT YOGURT* (CULTURED NONFAT MILK), SOY LECITHIN, VEGETABLE MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, (POTASSIUM SORBATE, CALCIUM DISODIUM EDTA) USED TO PROTECT QUALITY, LACTIC ACID, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR, VITAMIN A PALMITATE, BETA CAROTENE (COLOR).

        It’s not butter. I thought this was a brand of butter, but it’s just another fake butter spread that came on the scene probably during the lowfat craze when real butter was demonized. Same company that makes Country Crock. Just a lot of processed and/or hydrogenated GMO oils and other additives. Apparently they claim it’s so good because it has yogurt as an ingredient (Monsanto yogurt, I’m sure). You could melt it and make a fake butter popsicle out of it though! Or you might enjoy worm-free corn – Monsanto worm-free corn that is- with Brummel & Brown Spread. Gotta love manmade industrial food. Could be harmful, even in moderation.

        Ted, every food blogger on the internet has links to purchase recommended products, and these bloggers get a small commission from those. And they should for all the time and energy put into their endeavors. Is there a problem with that?

      2. Jenna,
        No problem with her making money on this website but I wonder what would happen if all of a sudden the food babe did some real research and found out that some things she is saying aren’t true? Does she fess up, p o some of her advertisers and lose some money or does she keep quiet and keep on doing what she’s doing? I think it would be the latter. I only point out the money issue because it gets pointed out about my side of the argument all the time…..you know, I and Monsanto only do what we do for short term profits with no regard for the long term consequences….stuff like that you should be familiar with because you wrote it to me once.

        Oh well….Brummel and Brown does have an appealing name. All of you who asked about it should throw it out now because you will die probably around the age of 80 if you eat it. Same holds true if you don’t eat it but that just doesn’t have the same dire tone to it.

      3. So everyone is going to die around age eighty and die of natural causes? Wouldn’t that be a nice guarantee. I’m referring to Monsanto and the biotech buddies only being interested in short term profit, not necessarily farmers; farmers have just been manipulated and almost forced into participating in the GMO farming conversion (I’m sure you have an opinion on that). I do not see them interested in any long term consequences…even if they keep telling you how we all need them to feed the world and save the world.

        No one is going to drop dead eating from an ear of worm-free GMO corn with Brummel and Brown Spread, but it’s the cumulative effect overtime from so many ‘products’ like this. Our poor bodies can only tolerate so much, for so long. Whether it’s a terminal disease or a chronic condition or disease.

      4. Statistics show that the average lifespan of a man and woman in this country is 80. Some live to 60 and some live to over a 100. No guarantees though. I hope to be in the 100 or more statistic. Margarine has been around for how long? I don’t know but a long time and it has been pretty popular and well consumed because, at the time, it was considered to be a “the” healthy alternative to butter. Now it’s not healthy any more. Lifespan has gone up since it came out. How’d that happen if what you say is true? I don’t ask these questions to be a smart*ss so please don’t take it that way. There may be alot of things that kill me before I’m 80 but it likely won’t be the mostly non-organic, GMO laden foods I eat.

        There are farmers in certain parts of the country who don’t experience heavy weed and worm pressure that may feel manipulated into planting GMO seed. No doubt about it. I don’t feel manipulated at all though. It used to be a common thought that if your neighbors were planting all Roundup ready seed then you better plant it too because drift from his farm may kill your crops. Spray technology has improved (less drift with the use of different equipment and additives) and that’s not such a huge concern anymore. Wheat and grain sorghum are not GMO and those crops are grown successfully in heavy GMO planted areas. The GMO technology was so widely accepted early on that seed breeding companies developed the best varieties with GMO traits. There has been some shift lately back to them offering some conventional (non-GMO) varieties also. I look for that trend to continue as the non-GMO movement is growing and the market reacts to it. That doesn’t mean it’s dangerous at all but perception is everything today. Reality is much less important.

    1. Because I am not here to defend Monsanto. I have no insight into Monsanto s history regarding PCBs. My concern is what’s being said here about the US food production system and the inaccuracies in comments that need addressing

    2. As far as his killing us with their food comment goes, of course I think that’s assinine. I am curious to know what you believe about that.

    3. To address your comment again about your family dying from cancer you should check out this information.

      http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealthygetactive/acsguidelinesonnutritionphysicalactivityforcancerprevention/acs-guidelines-on-nutrition-and-physical-activity-for-cancer-prevention-food-additives

      It continually says “unknown” when it comes to organic foods or organic versus conventionally grown. Jenna will say something about the precautionary principle. I would say if that’s if you exercise the “precautionary principle” when it comes to food maybe you shouldn’t drive a car to Whole Foods. You should walk for the exercise and avoid the car because you are far more likely to die in a car wreck than from pesticide exposure in foods. There have been comments here saying that farmers are dropping dead of cancer too because of exposure to pesticides. I suggest you do some research into that too. I found one long term study that says that farmers have a low rate of cancer compared to most other occupations. The only cancer we get more of is skin cancer because we spend alot of time in the sun.

  20. To Jenna and Luz,
    This “eat only organic, non GMO” movement makes many people feel guilty because the information you say you are providing is inaccurate. If I was an organic farmer you would pay me alot more for my product. It isn’t easy at all doing what those guys do. That’s why so many of them quit. In the article I posted about organic farmers that was in the wall street journal website just a few days ago, the one guy they interviewed who said he was somewhat profitable said that if you counted the hours he had to work, he was making less than minimum wage. Your movement says if it isn’t organic/non-GMO its any number of adjectives, like crap, garbage, poison, etc. I’ve read all those on this site and both of you have used those terms. There is no REAL proof of that at all. Luz I am sorry about your family members who died of cancer. Why do you assume what they ate caused the disease? I’m certainly not trying to tell you what to eat. You eat what you want to eat. Just don’t justify it by saying things that aren’t true.

  21. To Jenna again,
    Two things…..you said that you grow a few things. That’s great! However growing things is far different than trying to do it commercially.

    I do see the good and positive things about organic farms. There is good and positive in all of US agriculture. There are also problems with all of US agriculture, including organic, and we are continually working to get better even though we are doing a really good job now. You are the one who needs to open your eyes to see the good and positive. I have not been attacking organic at all but you sure feel free to attack non-organic.

    Back to what you said about growing things and growing up next to a couple of farms so you know what you are talking about. I own a piano and plink around on it some. I study it on the internet trying to get better because I do enjoy it. However I wouldn’t feel comfortable telling Elton John or any professional musician he’s all wrong because I don’t like what he’s playing (in the case of Elton John, I do like).

  22. Since we have some differing opinions I would be curious to hear why the great trust in what the Government regulatory agencies and Monsanto have said seeing as the long history of questionable decisions ie Agent Orange/DDT these were both labeled as not only safe but good for you by these same organizations. I don’t know if all the connections being made are correct but they definitely have reached the point that unbiased studies need to be conducted to accurately determine the health risks of said GE products. One known fact is the nutrient density of most foods has gone down over the last 30 years coincidence?

  23. SO – maybe this is answered elsewhere, but there are too many comments to go through, so I will ask again. What is the best butter substitute if one is lactose intolerant? I have heard Earth Balance mentioned on other sites, but I live in a fairly rural area and cannot always get it (plus I’m really not crazy about the consistency). Advice????

    1. Seems like Ghee would be your best choice and since it doesn’t require refrigeration you may be able to acquire online.

  24. How do you feel about Brummel & Brown? It’s a yogurt/vegetable oil spread that tastes very similar to real butter and has no hydrogenated fats.

  25. Sorry Ted and company. Worked for Monsanto. Not a pretty picture. What started as something to ease farmer’s lives by giving them plants “naturally” resistant to pests while increasing crop yield…those pesky little experimental plants were not good. That’s all I can say…

    1. I would sure listen as I am here to learn. However you’ll have to come up with more than this. Like what you did for Monsanto and what was not good about those pesky little experiemental plants for starters. Isn’t this site supposed to be about information? Come with it girl.

  26. I read about the study on irrigation channels and building them differently to inhibit accumulation of the neonicotinoids in the Ohio State school of Ag monthly back 4 months ago or so. . It looked promising.
    This has been a fantastic thread to read and makes me want to get back into the Ag school and use my Horticulture education. We certainly didn’t have these problems back in the late 70’s when I last farmed.

    1. Tom,
      I think we had the problems back in the 70’s. We just didn’t have the awareness. The pesticides used then were far more dangerous than now and many were banned. The irrigation/drainage channels you mention (I call these a ditch) are being studied at every major ag university. Water quality issues are huge now. There is concern more over nitrogen and phosphorus getting into lakes and rivers than pesticides but if we reduce the amount of runoff leaving our fields then naturally pesticide runoff will be reduced too. Larger drainage ditches are starting to have low grade wiers (small dams) installed throughout the length of the ditch to slow down the velocity of water which allows sediment to fall out before it reaches a water body. This has proven to be very effective in reducing sediment/fertilizer/pesticide runoff. Also there are control boxes being attached to the entrances of culverts and drainage structures to slow the water. Cover crops are being planted in ditches and especially at the entrance and exit points of ditches into other bodies of water. Animal manure is loaded with nitrogen and phosphorus. This is a major reason animals are raised in those containment houses that are so unpopular these days. Farmers are required to manage the waste and it is much easier to manage if that waste is in a limited area under a roof. Large herds or flocks of free roaming animals sounds like a great idea but the reality is that the waste management and cleanup is a huge problem to overcome. Every time it rains that stuff runs off into a ditch which drains to a body of water regulated under the Clean Water Act. The EPA takes enforcement of that act pretty seriously and most farmers would rather face the IRS than the EPA.

  27. This is probably a stupid question, but is Kosher butter a better choice then the GMO traditional butter? Breakstones is HUGE in my local grocery store, where they really lack on organic options.

  28. You should update the article with the ‘Best’ option to buy local, grassfed, raw (where possible) butter. Westonaprice.org and their milk site, realmilk.com have great info on this, plus they puts out a food guide every year that lists farms where you can obtain grassfed and raw butter from. I currently get mine from an Amish farm that does raw/grassfed (100%) butter. As a matter of fact that guide lists all types of food and where to get it, even listing by best, good, and what to avoid. Just throwing that out there.

  29. Ted, and anyone else who actually trusts the FDA:
    I always thought our government alphabet soup agencies, including the FDA had our best interests in common. Wow, was I naive. In 1990, at age 31, otherwise in perfect health, I had a bout with flu, and I used Robitussin CF as directed on the bottle to battle the cough that came with it. At the end of the week, I had a stroke. Unbeknownst to me, so had 40,000 other people, mostly women. I thank God I survived it. What I did not know was that the FDA knew the danger of the ingredient, Phenylpropanolamine, or PPA for short. For nearly 20 years, they knew it caused strokes, and often killed people who used the 137 different OVER THE COUNTER preps They were getting reports about strokes for that period, and chose to do NOTHING but collect that info and keep it a secret. It was finally banned in November 2000, after almost 30 years, too late for me, and thousands of others. Why do you think that is, Ted? Because the executives from the very companies who manufacture some of these poisons, including medications and pesticides, serve at the FDA to get them passed, before going back to their cushy jobs at various drug and chemical companies.

    CAN YOU SAY, “the fox is guarding the hen house”? Seriously, anyone who trusts the U.S. agencies who tell us “nothing to see here”, “it’s all good and safe”, is a fool.
    Oh, and by the way, when the law suits started to pour in, the FDA let the very companies who manufactured the drug, do the “research” on it to say just how dangerous it really was. In the end, only 300 some people were “allowed” to participate and gain any compensation for their injuries. That was because the “research” was only on people who had a certain type of stroke. Even though PPA caused various types of stroke, they were able to reduce the number down from 40,000+ to 300 who could potentially sue them. Nice-huh?

  30. Ted, I did not think you were making light of my stroke. Though I have heard people say similar things for years. It must have been something I did, or something about me that made the PPA do what it did. I had to answer a 30 question survey in order for the lawyer to even consider me. I was able to answer NO to 29 questions, including, do you drink, are you an alcoholic, a drug abuser, do you use cocaine, do have high blood pressure, do you have a stroke history, etc, etc, etc, etc. Until I go to the LAST question, and it just asked what type stroke did I have.

    When the law firm turned me down, I asked why. Clearly I had a stroke, and no reason other than the PPA I had consumed, they had my medical records that proved it had damaged me. Their answer, because they will not hear any case except from those who had the hemorrhagic strokes.

    My point to you, and this goes back to foods and pesticides, is that those Govt. agencies who tell us this or that chemical is safe are NOT to be trusted. That goes for politicians or appointed agents, they are corruptible, and the drug and chemical lobbyists re clear on that fact. Just because they are elected does not mean they did not take corporate money to get there, and then they need to answer to them to get re-elected, not always the people. We will probably have to agree to disagree, since we may be looking at the same coin, and seeing different sides.

  31. Why do you have the Wild Harvest butter in the “Best” section when The Cornucopia Institute gave them a one cow rating for refusing to participate in their study?

  32. We make our own butter all the time in minutes. Avalon whipping cream shake in a jar for 10 minutes rinse in cold water and salt if desired. Why bother buying store made butter?

  33. I had a reaction once to an Organic Valley product, not sure if it was butter or not. The internet is filled with trolls and government provocateurs. I don’t trust anyone anymore. This is the “age of deception.” The ultimate solution is to control your own food supply as much as possible by growing your own food and buy locally. I don’t need to be told what in this or that anymore. We already know they’re in it for the big bucks at the expense of our health. Tell me something I don’t already know.

    1. I was wondering that as well. I am dairy free so I use Organic Earth Balance and like it a lot but obviously it’s not butter.

  34. It is best to make your own butter. When you buy your butter at the store you are putting your money in someone else s pocket. Organic butter is still made in a factory.

  35. I used to make my own ghee in my home country. Unfortunately you need 100% pure organic butter for that and I haven’t found any here in the US. The butter here is so expensive and not even good. Any idea if there is a chance to find it here? If so, where and what would you suggest? So far I moved to coconut and avocado oil instead, but for baking the ghee is my favorite. THANKS

  36. I am also eager to hear your evaluation of Earth Balance? Please tell me that I can keep enjoying it!

  37. Can anyone tell me what the second butter is listed under Organic Grassfed (under Organic Valley green label)?? The graphic is too small/blurry to read any names on it. Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

food babe with grocery cart - footer image