Friday, July 12, 2013


U.S. Polls on GE Food Labeling
MSNBC, 2/25/11
Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?
Yes – 96% of over 45,000 voters believe genetically modified foods should be labeled
Reuters / NPR, 10/10
Poll conducted by Thompson Reuters and National Public Radio finds 93% of
Americans believe all GE foods should be labeled as such; only 35% willing to
eat GE fish

Washington Post, 9/17/10
Should genetically-modified food be labeled?
Yes – 95%
KSTP – St. Paul/Minneapolis, 9/21/10
Should Genetically Modified Salmon Carry a Different Label?
Yes, Should be labeled as genetically modified fish – 95%
Consumer Reports, 11/11/08
2008 Food Labeling Poll found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought
food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent
strongly agreed with this.
ABC News, 6/19/01
An ABC News poll found that 93% of the American public wants the federal government to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.

* 90% of Americans said foods created through genetic engineering processes should have special labels on them (Rutgers University’ Food Policy Institute study, November 2001)

* 90% of American farmers support labels on biotech products if they are scientifically different from conventional foods and 61% support labels on

biotech products even if not scientifically different. (Farm Foundation/Kansas State University, survey of farms throughout the U.S., September 2001).

* 75% of Americans say it is important to them to know whether a food product contains genetically modified ingredients. (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology poll, March 2001).

* 86% of Americans think that the government should require the labeling of all packaged and other food products stating that they include corn, soy or other products which have come from genetically modified crops (Harris Poll, June 2000).

* 79% of Americans said it should not be legal to sell genetically modified fruits and vegetables without special labels (USA Today, February 2000).

* 86% of Americans want labels on genetically engineered foods (International Communications Research, March 2000)

* 81% of Americans think the government should require genetically engineered food products to be labeled. 89% of Americans think the government should require pre-market safety testing of genetically engineered foods before they are marketed, as with any food additive. (MSNBC Live Vote Results, January 2000).

* 92% of Americans support legal requirements that all genetically engineered foods be labeled. (BSMG Worldwide for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, September 1999).

* Almost 70% of Americans think the U.S. government should require more extensive labeling of ingredients in genetically engineered food. (Edelman Public Relations Worldwide in Bloomberg News, September 1999).

* 81% of American consumers believe GE food should be labeled. 58% say that if GE foods were labeled they would avoid purchasing them. (Time magazine, January 1999).

* 93% of women surveyed say they want all GE food clearly labeled. (National Federation of Women’s Institutes, 1998).

* 93% of Americans who responded to a Novartis survey agree that GE foods should be labeled as such. 73% of those agree strongly with the position. (Novartis, February 1997). 25% say they would be likely to avoid labeled GE foods.

* 84% of 604 New Jersey residents polled want mandatory labeling of GE fruits and vegetables, 60% would consider buying fresh vegetables if they were labeled as having been produced by genetic engineering and 76% favor farmers voluntarily putting labels on their produce that say the items were not genetically engineered. (USDA, July 1995).

* 94% of 1,900 consumers polled believed that milk should be labeled to distinguish milk from rbGH-treated cows, 10% of milk drinkers say they buy their products from non-treated cows and more than 74% of consumers say they are concerned about the possible discovery of negative long-term effects on human health associated with rbGH. (USDA, March-June 1995).

* 92% of 36,000 polled say they want GE food labeled, with a 94% pro-labeling response from women and a 84% pro-labeling response from men. (Vance Publishing, in Food R&D, February 1995).

* 81% of 8,000 subscribers to PRODIGY Internet service think that milk containers should be labeled to indicate whether or not the milk comes from cows treated with rbGH. 92% of women; 78% of men (PRODIGY Internet company, March 1994).

* 88% of respondents favor mandatory labeling from rbGH-treated cows, 9% oppose mandatory labeling and 3% are unsure (St. Norbert College and Wisc. Pub. Radio, February 1994).

* 85% of those polled think that labeling of GE food is “very important” (USDA, 1992).

* In an FDA sponsored survey in 1992, 8 state attorneys general asked the FDA to require mandatory labeling of all GE foods



By Michele Simon and Andrew Kimbrell
You may have noticed the impressive grassroots movement gathering steam lately over the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods. Recently, Connecticut became the first state in the nation to enact a law to require such labels, and 26 other states have introduced similar bills this year. Millions of Americans are demanding more transparency in the food supply and our elected officials are finally responding, after decades of work by groups like Center for Food Safety (CFS). 

But one advocacy group, Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), often seen as a leader in nutrition policy, stands virtually alone in its continued opposition to labeling GE foods. This stance is troubling and confusing given how outspoken CSPI has been for decades on food labeling and consumer information.
CSPI’s position, explained in this recent news interview, boils down to three claims:
  1. GE foods do not present either safety or nutrition concerns;
  2. Processed GE foods do not contain genetically-engineered material;
  3. Non-GE labels are “misleading” because they imply a safer or superior food.
Let’s take these one by one.
GE Food Safety is an Open Question
First, CSPI claims that genetically engineered food labeling is “not a food safety or a nutritional issue—it’s not like allergens or trans fats.”
This is a pretty bold statement to make given how little information is available on the safety of GE foods. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not require or conduct safety studies on GE foods, nor does it approve GE foods as safe. Instead, there is only confidential consultation between industry and FDA, where GE food developers decide what summary information to provide the agency; and even that is voluntary. So we are essentially taking the biotech industry’s word that GE food is not hazardous. CSPI itself acknowledges that the government isn’t doing its job, calling on FDA to “require a mandatory pre-market approval process” and “formally approve that the crop is safe for human and animal consumption.” How can CSPI on the one hand admit we need more rigorous oversight, while on the other claim there is no safety issue? 
Further, while obviously no substitute for adequate food safety oversight, mandatory labeling of GE foods will allow the detection of adverse health effects of consuming such foods. Without labeling, anyone who gets sick from eating a GE food has no way of identifying the cause.
It’s also odd that CSPI would distinguish allergens from GE foods, given that allergic reactions, which can be life-threatening, are the most widely accepted health threat posed by GE organisms. As Michael Hanson, senior scientist with Consumers Union, noted in his testimony in support of the Connecticut GE labeling bill in March:
“The human safety problems that may arise from GE include introduction of new allergens or increased levels of naturally occurring allergens, of plant toxins and changes in nutrition.”  
He also testified in regards to the GE salmon moving closer to federal approval (despite overwhelming public opposition):
“Company data suggest that it may exhibit increased allergenicity.”
And although the federal government has approved numerous pesticides genetically engineered into corn and cotton, in 2009 they also funded research to better determine if they can trigger food allergies. In the meantime, the allergy risk from GE food justifies a safety-based label similar to those warning that a food contains nuts.
Many Food Labels Are Not About Safety
In addition, safety is not the defining factor for requiring food labels. We label all sorts of things not based on safety concerns per se. Take basic ingredient labeling, which CSPI supports. We don’t question the safety of every single ingredient that foods contain, but each is still required to appear on the label, because consumers have the right to know what is in their food.
Similarly, we don’t require the listing of fat, sugar, salt, vitamins and minerals because we think those items are dangerous; rather, we require them because it helps the consumer make more informed choices, a concept with which CSPI appears to agree. To make its case for requiring chain restaurants to post calorie counts and other nutrition information, CSPI argues that, without such information, “it’s difficult to make informed and healthy choices.”
Why is labeling GE food any different? It isn’t. Think about it this way: if we know a food ingredient is dangerous, we don’t merely label it, we remove it from store shelves. 
Even Processed Foods Often Contain GE Material
CSPI also claims:
“… the great majority of foods that contain highly purified oils, corn sugars and cornstarch ingredients made from GE crops contain essentially no genetically modified DNA or protein.”
First, CSPI’s cleverly worded statement applies to a minority of foods, mainly sodas containing high-fructose corn syrup, as well as corn and soybean oil. But it excludes those foods most likely to have substantial amounts of GE ingredients: corn-based cereals, tortillas, tacos, corn chips, corn flour, corn grits, etc. For example, an important report called Cereal Crimes from the Cornucopia Institute in 2011 listed several cereal brands (labeled “natural”) that tested positive for high levels of GE ingredients, “sometimes as high as 100 percent.” Those products included well-known brands such as Kellogg-owned Kashi’s GoLean and General Mills’ Kix, a children’s cereal.
In addition, numerous lawsuits are being filed against food makers using the “natural” label on products containing genetically engineered ingredients. To make their case, lawyers are conducting independent testing of products such as Frito-Lay snacks and finding genetically engineered proteins. In fact, according to the industry lobby, Grocery Manufacturers Association, an estimated 70 percent of products on supermarket shelves contain soy or corn ingredients likely to be derived from GE crops.
People Want to Know if Food is Genetically Engineered for Many Reasons
Moreover, consumers care about GE labeling for more than just health reasons. For example, many people know that growing GE crops is an unsustainable practice that harms the environment. The vast majority of genetically engineered crops are designed to withstand herbicides, and therefore promote indiscriminate herbicide use. As a result, genetically engineered crops have increased herbicide use by a substantial 527 million pounds in the 16 years from 1996-2011. Most of this increase is attributable to glyphosate, the active ingredient of Roundup herbicide, sprayed on Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops. This heavy use of glyphosate is known to harm plants and wildlife, and some studies suggest harm to farmers as well. Further, the glyphosate onslaught has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds that in turn lead to greater use of more toxic herbicides. People should have the choice to avoid foods that lead to such environmental harms (a concern CSPI appears to share), as they do with other types of “eco” or “green” labels.
Non-GE Claims Are Not Misleading, the Absence of GE Labeling Is
Finally, CSPI also alleges that “non-GMO label claims are misleading, since they falsely imply that food made without GE ingredients is safer or superior in some other way.”
But it is no more misleading to label a food as non-GMO than it is to label “orange juice from concentrate.” Neither statement is about safety. These are strictly factual and non-controversial disclosures. (Same is true for a label disclosing that a food or ingredient is genetically engineered.) Far from misleading consumers, such a label would empower those who want GE foods to purchase them, and enable others to avoid them. If anything is misleading, it’s the lack of mandatory labeling of GE foods. CSPI again entirely misses the point that food labeling is not only about safety or being superior, but about informed choice.  
CSPI is Out of Step with Democracy
Finally, CSPI is in a dwindling minority in its position. Numerous polls indicate that Americans want GE food labeling, with most results topping 90 percent. What other issue can you get 90 percent of Americans to agree upon? Last fall, six million Californians voted for GE food labels, despite a $45 million campaign of lies and dirty tricks to stop Proposition 37 from passing, just narrowly.
Moreover, 1.2 million people have now endorsed a Center for Food Safety legal petition from 2011 demanding FDA require the labeling of GE food. In addition, 64 other nations already require GE labels, including Japan, Australia, Brazil, China, Russia, and the entire European Union. It is only a matter of time before we see required labeling of genetically engineered food in the U.S. Meanwhile, having an organization such as CSPI speak out against GE food labeling is counterproductive. We hope they soon join the growing chorus of voices and support our right to know.
Visit EcoWatch’s GE FOODS page for more related news on this topic.

Wednesday, July 10, 2013


Monsanto Is Losing the Press

| Wed Jul. 10, 2013 3:00 AM PDT
Ah, high summer. Time to read stories about the declining effectiveness of GMO-seed giant Monsanto's flagship products: crops engineered to resist insects and withstand herbicides.
Back in 2008, I felt a bit lonely participating in this annual rite—it was mainly just me and reporters in a the Big Ag trade press. Over the past couple of years, though, it's gone mainstream. Here's NPR's star agriculture reporter Dan Charles, on corn farmers' agri-chemically charged reaction to the rise of an insect that has come to thumb its nose at Monsanto's once-vaunted Bt corn, engineered to contain the bug-killing gene of a bacteria called Bacillus thuringiensis:

It appears that farmers have gotten part of the message: Biotechnology alone will not solve their rootworm problems. But instead of shifting away from those corn hybrids, or from corn altogether, many are doubling down on insect-fighting technology, deploying more chemical pesticides than before. Companies like or that sell soil insecticides for use in corn fields are reporting huge increases in sales: 50 or even 100 percent over the past two years.
And this, from a veteran observer of the GMO-seed industry who—in my view—sometimes errs on the side of being too soft on it.
The Wall Street Journal's Ian Berry got the ball rolling early this year with a May report bearing the evocative headline "Pesticides Make a Comeback: Many Corn Farmers Go Back to Using Chemicals as Mother Nature Outwits Genetically Modified Seeds":

Insecticide sales are surging after years of decline, as American farmers plant more corn and a genetic modification designed to protect the crop from pests has started to lose its effectiveness. The sales are a boon for big pesticide makers, such as American Vanguard Co. and Syngenta.
All the attention on superinsects has taken the major-media spotlight off of the "superweeds" that have evolved to shrug off copious doses of Roundup, the herbicide that's supposed to make Monsanto's Roundup Ready crops immune to weed problems. But that doesn't mean these thug weeds have stopped working their magic. They're "gaining ground" in Iowa, heart of the US corn/soy belt, reports the Cedar Rapids-based Gazzete. And farmers are responding just as they did in the South, where Roundup-resistant weeds have had been rampant for at least five years: with a chemical deluge. Here's one of several anecdotes in the Gazzette piece on that illustrate this familiar theme:

Tracy Franck, who farms 2,400 acres in Buchanan County with his dad and son, said they “are putting on more Roundup every year to kill the same amount of weeds.” They, like most other farmers in their area, are also applying a pre-emergent residual herbicide to help control the glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup]-resistant weeds that are just beginning to show up in their fields. “We are starting to see some lambs quarter and giant ragweed that are tough to kill,” he said.
(As someone who likes to eat lambs quarter, a delicious, nutrient-dense green, I'm sorry to see it emerge as a target of chemical warfare.)
Meanwhile, Food and Water Watch has just come out with a damning report called "Superweeds: How Biotech Crops Bolster the Pesticide Industry." The nutshell: the rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton in the mid-1990s has given rise to a boom in use of herbicides. Note how use fell for a while after the introduction Roundup Ready seeds before beginning to spike in 2001, when Roundup resistant weeds began to emerge.

Food and Water Watch
GMO industry defenders point out that relatively benign Roundup at least displaced older, more toxic herbicides as farmers transitioned to Roundup Ready crops. But as FWW shows, that no longer holds. Farmers are turning to one particularly nasty old herbicide, 2,4-D, with a vengeance as Roundup loses effectiveness:

Food and Water Watch
All of which raises the question: If Monsanto's seeds are failing, why are farmers still buying them in such vast numbers? Part of it is surely habit—for farmers, it must seem easier to plant Roundup Ready corn and supplement Roundup with a harsher herbicide than to try a whole new weed-control system.
The answer may also  at least partly lie in the GMO seed giants' dominance of the seed market. Last year, the US Department of Justice unceremoniously halted its antitrust investigation of Monsanto and its peers without taking action. As I showed in my post at that time, Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow together control 80 percent of the corn-seed market and 70 percent of the soy market. In such tightly consolidated markets, you get stuff like this (from my post from last year):

There's also evidence that farmers lack access to lower-priced [non-GM] seeds. In 2010, University of Illinois researcher Michael Gray surveyed farmers in seven agriculture-intensive counties of Illinois. He asked them if they had access to high-quality corn seeds that weren't genetically modified to contain Monsanto's Bt insecticide trait. In all seven counties, at least 32 percent of farmers said "no." In one county, 46.6 percent of farmers reporting having no access to high-quality non-Bt seed. For them, apparently, they had little choice but to pay Monsanto's high prices for Bt seeds, whether they needed them or not.
At any rate, as Food and Water Watch notes, the withering of herbicide-tolerant and Bt-infused crops hasn't hurt these companies at all—indeed, they also sell pesticides, and as NPR and the Wall Street Journal report, pesticide sales are booming.


Corporate Interests Prevail in Transatlantic Trade Talks

Critics warn of push for 'dangerous deregulation' across industries

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
Both US President Barack Obama and Prime minister David Cameron are seeking 'dangerous deregulation' in transatlantic trade deal. (Photo: Yves Herman/AP)As European officials gathered in Washington Tuesday for the second day of negotiations over the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA), critics sounded the alarm over corporate gifts, "dangerous deregulation," and a "bleak" outlook for citizens on both sides of the Atlantic.
Many warn that because existing tariffs between the partners already run low, at roughly three percent, the talks will largely focus on eliminating regulatory barriers.
"The [US Trade Representative's] office, representing corporate interests, will almost surely push for the lowest common standard," writes Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Ahead of the talks, over 60 pro-regulation groups from both sides of the Atlantic issued a letter to President Obama, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and European Council President Herman Van Rompuy, stating their opposition to the "use of behind-closed-door" tactics to "change and lower public interest measures for the sake of commercial interests." They continue:
A transatlantic agreement that is little more than a vehicle to facilitate deregulation would not only threaten to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, but also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards – residents of our countries – must be able to set those standards through the democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient.
The groups said they fear the talks would yield "harmonized" regulations that defer to whichever of the trading partners has the lowest standards in a number of areas including drug safety, food safety, privacy, workers' rights and the environment.
"The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker." -economist Joseph Stiglitz
With the US generally undercutting the EU's restrictions on food and chemicals, environmentalists warn that this may potentially open the door to the expansion of harmful practices such as the planting of genetically modified (GM) seeds.
International opposition to foods containing GMOs has long been a thorn in the side of American food giants and biotech companies such as Monsanto and Cargill.
“The stakes couldn’t be higher,” said Bill Waren, trade policy analyst at Friends of the Earth.
“The trans-Atlantic free trade agreement would give chemical companies and other multinational companies an effective weapon to roll back progress made over the last decade," he adds. “It could result in dangerous deregulation.”
In a conference call Monday, groups also expressed concern that the terms "could give Europe unlimited access to US natural gas supplies and thus increase the use of 'fracking' to meet the demand for exports," the Washington Post reports.
Further, the Guardian reports that US firms including Facebook, Google and Microsoft are seeking the relaxation of European data privacy rules despite recent controversy— following revelations disclosed by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden—that the US is spying on its European counterparts.
Describing US tactics as "take no prisoners," Stiglitz notes that during negotiations "arms will be twisted, and there is a real risk that an agreement will sacrifice basic values to commercial interests."
Because of the size of the deal—covering 50% of global economic output and 30% of global trade—Jacob Kirkegaard, senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said that the proposed pact "would create de facto global standards," which is worrisome for many.
Stiglitz concludes, "The likelihood that what emerges from the coming talks will serve ordinary Americans' interests is low. The outlook for ordinary citizens in other countries is even bleaker."

Tuesday, July 9, 2013


Unauthorized GM Rice Threatens World Supply

Strains left over from Bayer field trials found in US rice exports in over 30 countries

- Lauren McCauley, staff writer
(Photo: VAYardley/ cc/ Flickr)Strains of unauthorized, genetically modified (GM) rice have been found in United States' exports in over 30 countries, threatening 'widespread contamination' to the world's rice supply.
According to a recent report by the GM Contamination Register, which is a project of Greenpeace and GeneWatch UK, during 2006 and 2007 the USDA detected traces of three varieties of unapproved GM rice owned by pesticide giant Bayer CropScience (or one of its earlier derivations—Aventis CropScience or AgrEvo) in the general rice supply.
This news follows the recent discovery of a strain of non-approved GM wheat on a farm in Oregon.
“Scientific studies confirm that GM contamination is unavoidable once GM crops are grown in a region,” writes Earth Open Source in their report GMO Myths and Truths (pdf). “‘Coexistence’ rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops," they continue, "through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage.”
According to the official USDA report into the incident identified the Bayer field trials as the source of contamination but was unable to determine whether cross pollination or mechanical mixing was the mechanism responsible.
Further, they note that the contamination "has had a major impact on US rice exports" as US rice has been pulled off the shelves in numerous countries and banned outright in Russia and Bulgaria.


Pesticide Use Spikes as GMO Failure Cripples Corn Belt

Midwest farmers douse their fields in chemicals as insects grow resistant to Bt Corn

- Sarah Lazare, staff writer
Pesticides Poured on Illinois Cornfield (Photo: Fig and Sage)
Pesticide use is skyrocketing across the Midwestern U.S. corn belt, as biotech companies like Syngenta and AMVAC Chemical watch their pesticide sales spike 50 to 100 percent over the past two years, NPR reported Tuesday.
The culprit? Bt corn—a type of genetically engineered corn with insecticide built into its genes.
Variations of this corn strain—peddled across the world by large multinationals including Monstanto and Syngenta—are giving rise to Bt resistant insects and worms, studies show.
NPR reports that resistant 'pests' are decimating entire cornfields across Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota and Nebraska.
Yet, now that the targeted insect killings are not working, big agribusiness is simply throwing pesticides at the problem instead of moving away from GMOs.
This is despite warnings last year from the Environmental Protection Agency that unrestrained use of Bt corn will off-set the balance of the ecosystem.
Monsanto denies the severity of the damage wrought by Bt corn, assuring customers that many farmers 'have great success.'
Environmental groups have long warned that Bt corn is a danger to non-'pest' insects. In a 2004 briefing, Greenpeace showed that the effects of non-targeted insect killings ripple throughout the ecosystem.
Critics charge that the modified corn—which is spread by big agribusiness, pushed to small farmers, and crossbred with non GMO strains—undermines food diversity and security and devastates small-scale, sustainable farmers and peasants.
The revelation comes after scientists recently warned that pollution runoff from Midwestern farms, carried to the ocean by the Mississippi, is slated to create the largest ocean dead zone recorded in the Gulf of Mexico, choking marine life that crosses its path.
(Photo: Digital Journal)

Sunday, July 7, 2013


mcDonalds 263x164 Fast Food Rejection: McDonald’s Shuts Down All Restaurants in BoliviaFast Food Rejection: McDonald’s Shuts Down All Restaurants in Bolivia

Elizabeth Renter
July 6th, 2013
Updated 07/07/2013 at 3:12 pm

In some parts of the world, good food is food prepared with care, attention, and a plenty of time. This sort of food philosophy, where meals are made with fresh ingredients and patience, doesn’t lend itself well to fast food where cheap ingredients are premade so they can be warmed and slapped together in record-time. This sort of food dichotomy is exactly why McDonald’s couldn’t thrive in Bolivia—the first Latin America country to essentially kick the fast-food-giant out by keeping them in the red.
McDonald’s restaurants operated in Bolivia for 14 years, according to Hispanically Speaking. In 2002, they had to shutter their final remaining 8 stores because they simply couldn’t turn a profit—and if you know fast food companies, you know it’s not because they didn’t try.
The Golden Arches sunk plenty of money into marketing and campaigning—trying to get the food-loving Bolivians to warm to their French fries and burgers, but it simply wasn’t happening.

Some 60 percent of Bolivians are indigenous. “Fast” and processed foods are simply a foreign concept to them. Why would you pay someone to provide you with a less-than-delicious and unhealthy alternative to real food? This attitude is one that the U.S. fast food nation could learn a thing or two from.
Opposition to McDonald’s in Bolivia didn’t have to be super organized; they didn’t have to protest or use petitions. Instead, they simply made healthy choices and the company couldn’t drum up enough business as a result.
The losing battle that McDonald’s fought there inspired a documentary, “Por que quebro McDonald’s en Bolivia” or “Why did McDonald’s Bolivia go bankrupt”. In it, the filmmakers use interviews with cooks, nutritionists, teachers, and everyday Bolivians to try and explain why the fast food giant couldn’t succeed there.
In addition to inspiring a documentary, Bolivia has inspired people. When you truly value food, when you really enjoy it, fast food is a poor substitute. And though some cultures still adhere to this idea, many have lost themselves in the fast and convenient world of prepackaged food-like products.
“Fast-food represents the complete opposite of what Bolivians consider a meal should be,” explained the Hispanic blog El Polvorin. “To be a good meal, food has to have been prepared with love, dedication, certain hygiene standards, and proper cook time.”
Because McDonald’s survived in Bolivia for 14 years, you can’t say the battle was a quick one. But when you consider the citizens of that country simply did what came naturally and chose health, it was an easy one.

Read more: