Whole Foods Announces GMO Labeling

Sweet corn/Fairfax County

While the democratic process in the U.S. is slow in deciding on mandatory GMO labeling, being hampered by several corporate interests, it's now another corporation which shows the way to a safer future for consumers. Whole Foods supermarket, as America's first national grocery store, has decided that by 2018 products in its U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms.

As Walter Tobb, co-CEO of Whole Foods, stated in The Huffington Post:

“We are putting a stake in the ground on GMO labeling to support the consumer’s right to know. The prevalence of GMOs in the U.S. paired with nonexistent mandatory labeling makes it very difficult for retailers to source non-GMO options and for consumers to choose non-GMO products. Accordingly, we are stepping up our support of certified organic agriculture, where GMOs are not allowed, and we are working together with our supplier partners to grow our non-GMO supply chain to ensure we can continue to provide these choices in the future.”

This news follows on the heels of a recent HuffPost/YouGov poll indicating that 82 percent of Americans think GMO foods should be labeled. Common sense still would dictate that the labeling of GMO should happen as soon as possible. Although Wholefoods' initiative is welcome, waiting five years seems a long time when dealing with consumers' choice and health.  

Detroit, a Microcosm of America?

Ian Ransley Design/Flickr

 “Detroit is a microcosm of what’s going on in America, except America can still print money and borrow,” said Mr. Boyle, a veteran financial consultant after reviewing the financials of the city of Detroit. Is Mr. Boyle right and what does this mean for the future of American cities? Read full article in the New York Times about how Detroit seems to be stumbling towards bankruptcy.  For a visual experience see the ruins of Detroit.

Wealth Inequality in America

Serge Melki/Wikimedia Commons

We know that wealth inequality has been increasing in the U.S. - and in many other countries - : stories about CEOs making hundreds of times more than their average employees; bonuses of millions of dollars awarded to executives who leave, stay, sign up, perform well, perform ok, or perform lousy while average pay is under pressure; individual hedge fund managers making billions a year, while countries are on the verge of bankruptcy for lesser amounts. I discussed this subject in a previous post, Money, Power & the American Dream. Books have been written, studies performed about the negative consequences of too great of an inequality, but political discussion or social outrage has been quite limited in the U.S., with the exception of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Till now, perhaps, with the following video which has been going viral. It gives a simple but clear overview of wealth inequality in the U.S., showing that the gap between the haves and have-nots is much worse than many of us think:

Are There Any Europeans Left?

(European Politicians, Robin Hood Tax/Flickr)

While being this week in Europe, I couldn't help reading the most international newspaper of Europe, The International Herald Tribune. Soon it will be renamed the International New York Times, which is too bad but a sign of the times - no pun intended - and reflects the reality of being solely owned by The New York Times. The International Herald Tribune used to be a joint-venture between the Times and The Washington Post, but the Post stepped out in 2003, so now The New York Times wants to extend its global branding: see for a personal memory Adieu Herald Tribune by Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker. Anyway, coming back to where I began: I was reading a thought-provoking article by French writer and journalist Olivier Guez, titled: Are there any Europeans left?

It starts out by saying that Europe is in a crisis "not just of Europe’s currency, but of its soul." and he continues:
 

Minimum Wage and Capitalism Run Wild

Serge Melki/Wikimedia Commons

President Obama proposed an increase in the U.S. minimum wage from $7.25 to $9.00 in his State of the Union address. As usual, pundits from left and right criticized this as not enough or too much. Also, economists around the world continue to debate whether a high minimum wage can support or hamper economic growth and development.  Internationally, the following OECD diagram shows minimum wages in a number of countries, for example Australia seems the most generous at $15.75 per hour; the Netherlands offers $11.38, Mexico at the bottom with $0.58 and the U.S. as already stated, with a $7.25 minimum wage.

OECD Statistics

Obviously there are many differences, economically and culturally between these countries, so let's go back to the situation in the U.S. Maybe the situation with minimum wages is not just about the minimum wage but symptomatic for bigger issues in the economy as a whole. Economist Dean Baker explains this proposed increase in an article in the Huffington Post Minimum Wage: Who Decided Workers Should Fall Behind?  He states:

Hawaii Vote: Another Strike in the Battle Against GMOs

Sweet corn/Fairfax County

Food activists in Hawaii won a partial victory last week when the House Committee on Agriculture passed a measure to require labeling on genetically modified food. This seems only a partial win as Common Dreams reports:
"...Originally, House Bill 174 required any food product that is produced or sold in Hawaii to have a label saying it contains or was made using genetically engineered materials, but (last) Thursday's committee hearing amended the requirements so it only applies to produce imported from outside Hawaii...

..... Despite this provision, Hawaii is a ripe battleground for new legislation. According to the anti-GMO organization Hawai'i Seed, "Hawaii is the genetic engineering experimental capital of the world," with thousands of acres of arable farmland being used to test seed crops for agriculture giants, including Monsanto." In other words........

It's Time to Get Rid of The Big Mac Index, and The Big Mac

Hamburgers by uberculture/Flickr

In the same week that I heard about some really unappetizing food at McDonalds, The Economist  came out with its latest analysis of foreign-exchange rates according to its popular Big Mac index. This is how The Economist explains its index:

"Its secret sauce is the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP), according to which prices and exchange rates should adjust over the long run, so that identical baskets of tradable goods cost the same across countries. Our basket contains only a Big Mac, and relies on the efforts of McDonald’s to produce identical products from the same ingredients everywhere -  underlining added - (or almost everywhere: for India we use the Maharaja Mac, which contains chicken rather than beef) " 

So by and large, the Big Mac Index is based on comparing the price of an identical product (i.e. the Big Mac) around the world, the Index can determine whether a local currency is over - or undervalued against the dollar. The Economist continues:

"... At market exchange rates, the Canadian version of the burger costs $5.39, compared with an average price of $4.37 in America. By our reckoning, then, the Canadian dollar is roughly 24% overvalued relative to its American counterpart...."

Generally, average prices of hamburgers are lower in poor countries due to their lower labor costs, and this would invalidate some of the Index' conclusions, claim critics of the Big Mac Index. But I pose there is another criticism based on the "identical product" assumption.

A few days ago, I read the following alarming article McDonald's McRib Sandwich a Franken Creation of GMOs, ToxicIngredients, Banned Ingredients on the Natural Society website. This doesn't offer pleasant reading, let alone eating: