It's Friday, and in my books, that means it's time to feel good.
Let's set aside the doom-and-gloom stories for a moment and focus
on some good news!
--------------------
Today's FFGN is less about news and more about feeling good. Check out this cute Star Wars-themed parody of the war between conventional and organic food:
It's so cheesy but so funny at the same time! The facts about unsustainable practices in modern industrial farming must get out to more people; why not speak in a language that a huge chunk of the population understands? Obi-Wan Cannoli is right when he says that people don't even want to know where their food comes from, they just want low prices. Who knows, maybe someday it will be possible for a potato "father" to have a cucumber "son" thanks to genetic engineering.
I hope you enjoyed the video, and have a great weekend!
Showing posts with label genetic modification. Show all posts
Showing posts with label genetic modification. Show all posts
Friday, November 18, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Eric Schlosser explains why being a foodie isn't "elitist"
I'm out of town for part of this week, so instead of writing I thought I might share a great article from the Washington Post with you. It's long compared to my usual posts but well worth the read. It touches on so many issues within our broken food system that have caused me to put food and agricultural issues at the top of my list of environmental concerns.
At the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group's president, lashed out at "self-appointed food elitists" who are "hell-bent on misleading consumers." His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.
The "elitist" epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book "Fast Food Nation" was published, I've been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary "Food, Inc.," directed by Robby Kenner, was described as "elitist foodie propaganda" by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a "food fascist," while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," who was accused of being an "anti-agricultural" elitist by a wealthy donor.
This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America's current system of food production - overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels - is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it's inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.
During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets - none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn't exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America's cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle" and criticized the unchecked power of the "Beef Trust." The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.
America's ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.
While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers - and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking "big government" and calling the sustainability movement elitist.
Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system's recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America's highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry's lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.
Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.
While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation's annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.
African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities - much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.
Some aspects of today's food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.
Those things may be irritating. But they generally don't sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.
Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.
Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to "enhance public trust in our food supply." Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to "serve as a resource to food companies" seeking to defend current agricultural practices.
But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates - or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald's sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain's food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed "veggie libel laws" during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.
In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren't companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?
The answer is that they don't want people to think about what they're eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant - even from a public road - without the owner's permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.
The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg's, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee's Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.
Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.
A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.
Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Food, Inc."
© 2011 The Washington Post Company
--------------------
Thoughts? Reactions? Do you feel passionate or apathetic about this?
Why being a foodie isn't 'elitist'
By Eric Schlosser, Friday, April 29, 3:59 PM
At the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group's president, lashed out at "self-appointed food elitists" who are "hell-bent on misleading consumers." His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.
The "elitist" epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book "Fast Food Nation" was published, I've been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary "Food, Inc.," directed by Robby Kenner, was described as "elitist foodie propaganda" by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a "food fascist," while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," who was accused of being an "anti-agricultural" elitist by a wealthy donor.
This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America's current system of food production - overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels - is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it's inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.
During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets - none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn't exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America's cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle" and criticized the unchecked power of the "Beef Trust." The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.
America's ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.
While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers - and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking "big government" and calling the sustainability movement elitist.
Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system's recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America's highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry's lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.
Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.
While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation's annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.
African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities - much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.
Some aspects of today's food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.
Those things may be irritating. But they generally don't sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.
Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.
Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to "enhance public trust in our food supply." Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to "serve as a resource to food companies" seeking to defend current agricultural practices.
But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates - or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald's sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain's food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed "veggie libel laws" during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.
In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren't companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?
The answer is that they don't want people to think about what they're eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant - even from a public road - without the owner's permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.
The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg's, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee's Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.
Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.
A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.
Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Food, Inc."
© 2011 The Washington Post Company
--------------------
Thoughts? Reactions? Do you feel passionate or apathetic about this?
Saturday, May 14, 2011
King Corn: growing trash for 28 dollars' worth of government subsidies per acre
On Thursday I attended a free screening of King Corn, hosted by Young Urban Farmers CSA as part of their 2011 workshop and event series. Released in 2007, this film - at times quite funny and overall much more lighthearted than other documentaries, like Food Inc - follows the adventures of college buddies Ian and Curt as they move from the East Coast of the US to rural Iowa to the small town where as luck would have it, both of their great-grandfathers grew up. Their goal: to grow an acre of corn and follow it from field to end product.
Although King Corn didn't teach me much I didn't already know about the food system and corn's role in it, I experienced my fair share of moments of shock and disbelief. The funny thing is, if I hadn't spent a lot of time this spring helping Young Urban Farmers CSA (YUF CSA) turn back yard lawns into vegetable gardens, I may have had very different reactions. Take for instance the fertilizer Ian and Curt buy for their corn: anhydrous ammonia, or pure ammonia gas, which is highly toxic and very dangerous if not handled correctly. A specialized machine injects it into the ground where it will wait to be sucked up by the corn. What does YUF CSA do? We keep the soil healthy, which in turn keeps the veggies healthy, by adding compost and other organic matter. We feed the soil rather than forcing chemicals to sit in it.
Another real kicker was watching Ian and Curt plant their acre of corn. It took all of 18 minutes, and they didn't get their hands dirty. In fact, the only indication they may have done work in the field is visible in grease stains from operating yet another industrial farming machine. The only oil-dependent equipment YUF CSA uses is a rototiller, once per yard when it is first turned from sod to veggie. Elaine, our Head of Operations, shows us how it's done:
The variety of corn Ian and Curt planted has been genetically modified to generate a huge yield, tolerate growing in very dense rows, and resist the pesticide that is used with it. In other words, this corn tastes like chalk. Because most of it is used to make animal feed and high fructose corn syrup, the flavour has literally been bred out to make room for more starch (more calories). It's a raw material and definitely not destined for the grill in cob format. Again, the contrast to YUF CSA's approach is startling: we choose plant varieties that grow well in our climate and taste good... and that's it!
There's much more I could say... about how little Ian and Curt actually did in terms of farming; about how creepy a field of corn looks at ground level because absolutely nothing else is growing there; about how wrong it is to force cows to eat so much corn that they develop ulcers and would actually die of illness if we didn't take them to slaughter as early as we do. But what I really want to highlight is the irony of modern farming: people who grow corn can't feed themselves. Farmers can't feed themselves. As one farmer put it, "[we're] growing trash, the best trash in the world, because the government pays us for it". Ian and Curt received $28 in federal subsidies for that one acre they grew. Never mind the surplus corn sitting in giant piles outside of the already full grain elevator. Never mind the obesity and diabetes caused by everything we turn corn into. Never mind the toxins we put into the ground that eventually end up in our drinking water. It's a sad picture, one that farmers from as recently as two generations ago couldn't have imagined. I for one am happy to support an alternative food system that allows me to eat food straight out of the ground, grown 2 km from my home with no chemical inputs. There's nothing healthier than that.
Have any of you seen this documentary? How did you feel when you watched it?
Although King Corn didn't teach me much I didn't already know about the food system and corn's role in it, I experienced my fair share of moments of shock and disbelief. The funny thing is, if I hadn't spent a lot of time this spring helping Young Urban Farmers CSA (YUF CSA) turn back yard lawns into vegetable gardens, I may have had very different reactions. Take for instance the fertilizer Ian and Curt buy for their corn: anhydrous ammonia, or pure ammonia gas, which is highly toxic and very dangerous if not handled correctly. A specialized machine injects it into the ground where it will wait to be sucked up by the corn. What does YUF CSA do? We keep the soil healthy, which in turn keeps the veggies healthy, by adding compost and other organic matter. We feed the soil rather than forcing chemicals to sit in it.
Another real kicker was watching Ian and Curt plant their acre of corn. It took all of 18 minutes, and they didn't get their hands dirty. In fact, the only indication they may have done work in the field is visible in grease stains from operating yet another industrial farming machine. The only oil-dependent equipment YUF CSA uses is a rototiller, once per yard when it is first turned from sod to veggie. Elaine, our Head of Operations, shows us how it's done:
The variety of corn Ian and Curt planted has been genetically modified to generate a huge yield, tolerate growing in very dense rows, and resist the pesticide that is used with it. In other words, this corn tastes like chalk. Because most of it is used to make animal feed and high fructose corn syrup, the flavour has literally been bred out to make room for more starch (more calories). It's a raw material and definitely not destined for the grill in cob format. Again, the contrast to YUF CSA's approach is startling: we choose plant varieties that grow well in our climate and taste good... and that's it!
There's much more I could say... about how little Ian and Curt actually did in terms of farming; about how creepy a field of corn looks at ground level because absolutely nothing else is growing there; about how wrong it is to force cows to eat so much corn that they develop ulcers and would actually die of illness if we didn't take them to slaughter as early as we do. But what I really want to highlight is the irony of modern farming: people who grow corn can't feed themselves. Farmers can't feed themselves. As one farmer put it, "[we're] growing trash, the best trash in the world, because the government pays us for it". Ian and Curt received $28 in federal subsidies for that one acre they grew. Never mind the surplus corn sitting in giant piles outside of the already full grain elevator. Never mind the obesity and diabetes caused by everything we turn corn into. Never mind the toxins we put into the ground that eventually end up in our drinking water. It's a sad picture, one that farmers from as recently as two generations ago couldn't have imagined. I for one am happy to support an alternative food system that allows me to eat food straight out of the ground, grown 2 km from my home with no chemical inputs. There's nothing healthier than that.
Have any of you seen this documentary? How did you feel when you watched it?
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
GM Cows Make "Human" Milk
First pigs, then chicken, now: dairy cows. It seems no animals are safe from genetic modification these days. Say hello to GM cattle that produce "human" milk - milk with the same properties as human breast milk - in an attempt to make cows' milk more nutritious.
When parents turn to formula to feed their babies, many worry that this substitute isn't as healthy as the real thing. This is the motivation behind research at the China Agricultural University (funded by a biotechnology corporation) which aims to create cows' milk that contains some of the proteins found in human breast milk, proteins that help boost babies' immune systems and reduces their risk of infections. The scientists have even figured out how to boost the milk fat content by 20% and tinker with the levels of milk solids, such that this new milk is close in composition to human milk.
Hm, that sounds good. Until you realize that China's rules on GM technology aren't exactly strict. Even if you don't believe there are health risks associated with frankenfoods, you would still want them to be rigorously tested, right? Or, imagine this GM milk doesn't meet Canadian or American standards... how would you feel about it being consumed by millions in China and other countries with weaker regulations? I'm not sure this is a clear-cut issue.
Let's consider the cows, too. I'm a little shocked to hear that during two experiments, only 26 of 42 newborn GM calves survived their first few months, with the rest perishing to gastrointestinal disease. I can't be the only person to feel that it's unfair for baby cows to have to suffer and die so that human babies experience fewer infections. I'd feel differently if this new technology was meant to save lives on a large scale in a population where many babies' lives are at risk. But something tells me that's not the target demographic.
Well, those are my thoughts. Your turn: is this a good idea or a bad idea? Would you feed GM dairy milk to your baby?
Photo credit.
When parents turn to formula to feed their babies, many worry that this substitute isn't as healthy as the real thing. This is the motivation behind research at the China Agricultural University (funded by a biotechnology corporation) which aims to create cows' milk that contains some of the proteins found in human breast milk, proteins that help boost babies' immune systems and reduces their risk of infections. The scientists have even figured out how to boost the milk fat content by 20% and tinker with the levels of milk solids, such that this new milk is close in composition to human milk.
Hm, that sounds good. Until you realize that China's rules on GM technology aren't exactly strict. Even if you don't believe there are health risks associated with frankenfoods, you would still want them to be rigorously tested, right? Or, imagine this GM milk doesn't meet Canadian or American standards... how would you feel about it being consumed by millions in China and other countries with weaker regulations? I'm not sure this is a clear-cut issue.
Let's consider the cows, too. I'm a little shocked to hear that during two experiments, only 26 of 42 newborn GM calves survived their first few months, with the rest perishing to gastrointestinal disease. I can't be the only person to feel that it's unfair for baby cows to have to suffer and die so that human babies experience fewer infections. I'd feel differently if this new technology was meant to save lives on a large scale in a population where many babies' lives are at risk. But something tells me that's not the target demographic.
Well, those are my thoughts. Your turn: is this a good idea or a bad idea? Would you feed GM dairy milk to your baby?
Photo credit.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Time for a Pig Rally
You heard me: a pig rally. Remember the genetically modified Enviropig™ and its mouse/E.coli genes that help it excrete less phosphorous so that big agribusiness can continue raising pigs in factory farm conditions instead of adopting more ethical and environmentally sound practices? Well, its time is coming, and we need to take action now if we want to stop this GM pork from making it to supermarket shelves.
From The Big Carrot:
I don't know about you, but I like knowing that the food I eat is safe and healthy for me. We don't know that with certainty about Enviropig™.
Photo credit.
From The Big Carrot:
The University of Guelph will profit financially from commercializing the hugely controversial GE pig trademarked “Enviropig”. What happens when a public university fights to bring a product to market? The university has requested approval from Health Canada but:The Big Carrot is inviting everyone to join the pig rally to stop Enviropig™ from gaining Health Canada approval and will be providing free bus transportation between Toronto and Guelph to make it easier for GTA residents to show their support. Please view this flyer for more details. Also, take a look at CBAN's page on Enviropig™ for more background information and other ways to get involved.
On Wed Feb 9, MPs from the House of Commons Agriculture Committee will visit the University of Guelph to see how they can help “foster an innovative and fertile” biotech industry. At the same time, the House is voting on Bill C-474 which would require an analysis of export market harm before a new GE seed is permitted.
- There is no transparency in GE regulation and there has never been a democratic public debate.
- There is no GE food labeling to give consumers a choice.
- The GE pig could destroy the domestic and global markets for hog farmers, while providing few or no benefits to farmers.
I don't know about you, but I like knowing that the food I eat is safe and healthy for me. We don't know that with certainty about Enviropig™.
Photo credit.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
GMOs: Now In Chicken and Banana Flavours!
We can add genetically modified chickens and bananas to the growing list of franken-foods in the news recently. (I've previously commented on GM pigs, salmon, and apples.)
Scientists in the UK have engineered the world's first GM chickens that do not spread the avian flu, proving once again that simple problems can be fixed with extremely complex, costly, synthetic solutions. As we all know, avian flu is very easily spread in factory farm conditions where the animals live in such close quarters that the transmission of diseases is essentially inevitable. By the way, this is why 1 in 4 North American chickens carries salmonella. Obviously, instead of adopting more sustainable farming practices, industrial chicken factories (they're not farms) prefer to churn out as many chickens in as little time with as small of a budget on as small of a piece of land as possible. Enter the GM variety that is born immune to the avian flu, and watch as the profits rise.
But wait, it gets better: bananas are the next food to be targeted because the one and only variety exported to Canada, the US, and Europe (the Cavendish, which happens to be sterile) is currently being threatened by a fungus. To avoid losing the entire crop, it has been suggested that we genetically modify the Cavendish banana to be resistant to this fungus. Apparently the people who live in the areas where banana trees are a native plant (hot climates in Asia, Africa, and Latin America) grow a mix of about 1000 varieties in their own backyards, since diversity prevents a single disease from wiping out every last tree. But the people behind the industrial banana farming giants that export the fruit to the countries you and I live in (Dole, Chiquita, and Del Monte own 85% of the US market) want nothing to do with those varieties. They claim that those other bananas won't look so good after long-distance travel. I suspect the real reason they won't switch is that no other variety produces a giant yield like the Cavendish does. And let's face it - growing a monoculture of anything is just asking for trouble. All it takes is one pest to come along and destroy the entire crop. In other words, making one type of banana resistant to one fungus hides the symptom of a bigger problem: industrial agriculture is unsustainable.
These two stories offer more proof that genetic modification has nothing to do with feeding the hungry and everything to do with increasing the profit margin of big agribusiness while simultaneously allowing them to maintain farming practices that are detrimental to livestock, workers, the environment, and our health. But I don't want to end this post on such a pessimistic note. We need to remember that the public is growing increasingly aware of and concerned about genetic modification, that information about this topic is becoming more widely available, and that it is becoming easier to source organically grown food that is GMO-free!
How do you feel about genetic modification?
Photo credits: chickens; bananas.
These two stories offer more proof that genetic modification has nothing to do with feeding the hungry and everything to do with increasing the profit margin of big agribusiness while simultaneously allowing them to maintain farming practices that are detrimental to livestock, workers, the environment, and our health. But I don't want to end this post on such a pessimistic note. We need to remember that the public is growing increasingly aware of and concerned about genetic modification, that information about this topic is becoming more widely available, and that it is becoming easier to source organically grown food that is GMO-free!
How do you feel about genetic modification?
Photo credits: chickens; bananas.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Botox Apple: Coming Soon to a Store Near You
By now you, my dear readers, are quite familiar with my stance on genetic modification. I've written not once, but twice about Enviropig™, and I've introduce you to its cousin, AquAdvantage™ salmon, so let's keep the momentum going and spend some time pondering that most important of all questions: how do we keep sliced apples from browning?
Hopefully, like me, you're already groaning. I opened the link to the Associated Press article after reading someone's message on Twitter about news related to GMOs and apples. What I expected to read about was some researcher's quest to lower the number of pesticides necessary to yield a healthy apple crop - wait, I think that's an oxymoron ("pesticides" and "healthy" in the same sentence?). If not, it's a terrible pun. To my surprise, the drive behind introducing foreign genes into apples is, as I mentioned above, unrelated to solving the problem of apples' susceptibility to infestation. That's right, a Canadian biotechnology company hopes to gain USDA approval of genetically modified apples that won't brown when cut open. Benefits include making producers and distributors of ready-to-eat bagged apple snacks richer, making that Canadian biotechnology company richer, and... nothing else.
Drawbacks include:
Can you think of any more? You guys are smart. I bet you can.
What researchers ought to be spending their time and money on is developing more efficient and more effective pest management strategies that don't require pesticides or other toxic chemicals. I've written about this issue before, but what I failed to draw your attention to was the fact that apples ranked fourth in the Environmental Working Group's list of "Dirty Dozen" produce, based on how many pesticides are typically involved in their cultivation. That's why this is so important, way more important than the colour of an apple's flesh once you slice into it.
Armed with this knowledge, and knowing we can't really influence the USDA, I suggest the following simple actions:
Oh, and don't forget to read the article while crunching into that apple you're having a craving for!
Hopefully, like me, you're already groaning. I opened the link to the Associated Press article after reading someone's message on Twitter about news related to GMOs and apples. What I expected to read about was some researcher's quest to lower the number of pesticides necessary to yield a healthy apple crop - wait, I think that's an oxymoron ("pesticides" and "healthy" in the same sentence?). If not, it's a terrible pun. To my surprise, the drive behind introducing foreign genes into apples is, as I mentioned above, unrelated to solving the problem of apples' susceptibility to infestation. That's right, a Canadian biotechnology company hopes to gain USDA approval of genetically modified apples that won't brown when cut open. Benefits include making producers and distributors of ready-to-eat bagged apple snacks richer, making that Canadian biotechnology company richer, and... nothing else.
Drawbacks include:
- cross-pollination of traditional apple trees with genetically modified ones
- trashing entire orchards' worth of apple trees to start over with the GMO variety
- human health and other environmental effects that we can't even predict and often don't research
- if sales of apple snacks go up, a greater use of energy and water in processing the fruit, larger greenhouse gas emissions from transportation, and an increase in waste generation due to packaging, to name a few
- no benefit to consumers, unless you believe the market actually wants botox apples and will therefore increase their daily intake of fruit
- teaching the public, especially children, that white apples are natural and good for you - because it's not like there will be a big, bright label on the package that identifies the GMO contents
Can you think of any more? You guys are smart. I bet you can.
What researchers ought to be spending their time and money on is developing more efficient and more effective pest management strategies that don't require pesticides or other toxic chemicals. I've written about this issue before, but what I failed to draw your attention to was the fact that apples ranked fourth in the Environmental Working Group's list of "Dirty Dozen" produce, based on how many pesticides are typically involved in their cultivation. That's why this is so important, way more important than the colour of an apple's flesh once you slice into it.
Armed with this knowledge, and knowing we can't really influence the USDA, I suggest the following simple actions:
- buy whole apples instead of processed, packaged slices - you'll be getting more bang for your buck because you can eat all the way through to the core (factory slices are tiny), and as a bonus, the experience of biting into a whole apple is more satisfying, and juice running down your chin will make you laugh
- buy apples grown locally to support the farmers in your region
- source an apple orchard that uses alternatives to pesticides to keep yourself healthy
- if they don't know it, teach your family and friends that browning is natural and does not indicate that the apple has gone bad
Oh, and don't forget to read the article while crunching into that apple you're having a craving for!
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Update on Enviropig™
About a month ago, I told you about the genetically modified pig, misleadingly named Enviropig™, created at the University of Guelph and currently awaiting approval from Health Canada for human consumption. If you're unfamiliar with the story, read my post to get the facts and my opinion.
The Globe and Mail finally caught wind of this story and wrote about it in a way that suggests, nay, implies the authors have no beef (pork?) with GMOs and neither should the readers. Focusing mainly on the potential for feeding our ever-increasing world population, we are told that "the market may soon need Enviropig™", ignoring the plethora of issues that plague our food system which must be addressed first before resorting to extreme measures such as genetic modification.
Something new I actually learned about through this article was the GM predecessor to Enviropig™: AquAdvantage™ salmon, owned by Massachusetts-based biotech firm AquaBounty but created by researchers at Memorial University in Newfoundland and pioneered on Prince Edward Island. The GM salmon offer a faster rate of growth over their non-GM counterparts, and a few months ago the FDA deemed them safe to eat, though they have not yet been fully approved for the US market.
Once again, another opportunity is lost to educate readers on concerns with industrial aquaculture (especially the fact that faster-growing salmon won't solve any of the associated problems), and instead the authors distract us with the totally irrelevant issue of worrying that the Canadian origins of these GM animals may be forgotten when regulators in other countries approve of them first. I don't know about you, but I'd be happy to forget that my fellow Canadians are responsible for potential GM-related health and environmental effects in the long run.
To be honest, I'm glad the Enviropig™ issue is getting some media attention, I'm just disappointed with the Globe and Mail's coverage. Dissenting voices should get more than one paragraph at the end of a long article.
You can read the full story here.
Photo credit (sea lice on salmon): 7Barrym0re on Wikimedia Commons
 |
| Sock Pig is certified GMO-free |
The Globe and Mail finally caught wind of this story and wrote about it in a way that suggests, nay, implies the authors have no beef (pork?) with GMOs and neither should the readers. Focusing mainly on the potential for feeding our ever-increasing world population, we are told that "the market may soon need Enviropig™", ignoring the plethora of issues that plague our food system which must be addressed first before resorting to extreme measures such as genetic modification.
Something new I actually learned about through this article was the GM predecessor to Enviropig™: AquAdvantage™ salmon, owned by Massachusetts-based biotech firm AquaBounty but created by researchers at Memorial University in Newfoundland and pioneered on Prince Edward Island. The GM salmon offer a faster rate of growth over their non-GM counterparts, and a few months ago the FDA deemed them safe to eat, though they have not yet been fully approved for the US market.
 |
| GM salmon aren't immune to sea lice. |
Once again, another opportunity is lost to educate readers on concerns with industrial aquaculture (especially the fact that faster-growing salmon won't solve any of the associated problems), and instead the authors distract us with the totally irrelevant issue of worrying that the Canadian origins of these GM animals may be forgotten when regulators in other countries approve of them first. I don't know about you, but I'd be happy to forget that my fellow Canadians are responsible for potential GM-related health and environmental effects in the long run.
To be honest, I'm glad the Enviropig™ issue is getting some media attention, I'm just disappointed with the Globe and Mail's coverage. Dissenting voices should get more than one paragraph at the end of a long article.
You can read the full story here.
Photo credit (sea lice on salmon): 7Barrym0re on Wikimedia Commons
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Enviropig™ ... More Than Just a Cute Pig.
Cuter than Spiderpig, but scarier: wait till you hear about what they are and why they exist.
Researchers at the University of Guelph have created a genetically modified pig that excretes less phosphorous and, thanks to Environment Canada, have been allowed to reproduce and export it since February of this year. Now it's up to Health Canada to approve Enviropig™ for human consumption in this country - a scary thought.
Why is phosphorous bad?
Actually, phosphorous isn't bad. In fact, the phosphorous cycle is critical to plant growth and therefore, our survival. The problem is that excess phosphorous contaminates water: rivers and lakes with high phosphorous levels become overgrown with algae while other plants die off with too little sunlight and fish choke on too little oxygen. And if that weren't enough, it's also really unhealthy for animals (that includes us!) to drink.
How is all of this excess phosphorous ending up in the waterways?
This is a direct consequence of industrial hog production, otherwise known as the factory farming of pigs. It's exactly what the name implies: a big factory containing a large number of pigs, and often nothing else on the farm. Now, Mother Nature, left to her own devices, is one clever lady: she created pigs that excrete phosphorous so that their manure can be broken down by bacteria to release phosphorous back into the soil for plants to consume for growth. The cycle is complete. (By the way, if you're wondering why I'm not citing any sources, it's because I'm the source. Yesterday I wrote the first midterm for a course on sustainable development I'm taking this fall, so I've got cred!)
Enter human greed: the desire to make more money by cramming way too many pigs in way too small a space with way too little soil and plants in the surrounding area (not that there isn't land surrounding the farm, just that there couldn't possibly be enough of it compared to the size of the factory). Take Mother Nature's cycle, but add too much phosphorous, using the equation "too many pigs = too much manure = too much phosphorous", and what do you get? Factory farm run-off of pollutants into waterways.
Enviropig™ solves the problem of too much phosphorous - isn't that good enough?
No! I don't want the story of genetic modification to turn into the story of cigarettes, where we find out it's horribly bad decades after it's introduced to the market. How can we even determine the long-term health effects of GMOs when the companies who create GM seeds prohibit independent research on them? In other words, the reports we hear about are the ones funded by Big Agri-Business, and any proof that GMOs are harmful never sees the light of day. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but shouldn't we be "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our health?
When I claim these methods would cost less than raising Enviropig™, I'm including potential fees charged per pig, which is what Big Agri-Business does with its GM seed, the instability of foreign markets which have previously closed due to swine flu (most of the pork Canada produces leaves the country, by the way, in a desperate attempt to keep the industry afloat), and the big unknown - whether those markets are even interested in Enviropig™ at all.
For more information, check out the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
If, like me, you're feeling a little powerless about all of this (after all, when has writing to the Minister of Health ever influenced legislation?) and want to take proactive steps, I encourage you to talk to your butcher, ask where your meat comes from, and refuse it if it comes from a factory farm. Vote with your wallet!
 |
| Courtesy of The Simpsons™ |
Why is phosphorous bad?
Actually, phosphorous isn't bad. In fact, the phosphorous cycle is critical to plant growth and therefore, our survival. The problem is that excess phosphorous contaminates water: rivers and lakes with high phosphorous levels become overgrown with algae while other plants die off with too little sunlight and fish choke on too little oxygen. And if that weren't enough, it's also really unhealthy for animals (that includes us!) to drink.
How is all of this excess phosphorous ending up in the waterways?
This is a direct consequence of industrial hog production, otherwise known as the factory farming of pigs. It's exactly what the name implies: a big factory containing a large number of pigs, and often nothing else on the farm. Now, Mother Nature, left to her own devices, is one clever lady: she created pigs that excrete phosphorous so that their manure can be broken down by bacteria to release phosphorous back into the soil for plants to consume for growth. The cycle is complete. (By the way, if you're wondering why I'm not citing any sources, it's because I'm the source. Yesterday I wrote the first midterm for a course on sustainable development I'm taking this fall, so I've got cred!)
Enter human greed: the desire to make more money by cramming way too many pigs in way too small a space with way too little soil and plants in the surrounding area (not that there isn't land surrounding the farm, just that there couldn't possibly be enough of it compared to the size of the factory). Take Mother Nature's cycle, but add too much phosphorous, using the equation "too many pigs = too much manure = too much phosphorous", and what do you get? Factory farm run-off of pollutants into waterways.
Enviropig™ solves the problem of too much phosphorous - isn't that good enough?
No! I don't want the story of genetic modification to turn into the story of cigarettes, where we find out it's horribly bad decades after it's introduced to the market. How can we even determine the long-term health effects of GMOs when the companies who create GM seeds prohibit independent research on them? In other words, the reports we hear about are the ones funded by Big Agri-Business, and any proof that GMOs are harmful never sees the light of day. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but shouldn't we be "better safe than sorry" when it comes to our health?
What if genetic modification were absolutely safe?
Enviropig™ would still be wrong, simply because factory farming is wrong, and the associated problems can be solved in much easier and cheaper ways!
- raise fewer pigs in one place, or raise fewer pigs, period: we produce much more than we consume (yet hunger remains a big issue across the country) so could easily tolerate smaller livestock operations while simultaneously supporting family farms rather than their corporate counterparts
- feed pigs what they were meant to eat: a little bit of everything rather than a small variety of grains (typically corn and soybeans), which they can't fully digest and directly causes excess phosphorous in their manure
- spread the manure over much larger areas on the surrounding farmland (which is often used to grow the grain fed to pigs), rather than storing it in pits; this also reduces the amount of synthetic fertilizer used on crops, further reducing the likelihood of pollution run-off into waterways
When I claim these methods would cost less than raising Enviropig™, I'm including potential fees charged per pig, which is what Big Agri-Business does with its GM seed, the instability of foreign markets which have previously closed due to swine flu (most of the pork Canada produces leaves the country, by the way, in a desperate attempt to keep the industry afloat), and the big unknown - whether those markets are even interested in Enviropig™ at all.
For more information, check out the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.
If, like me, you're feeling a little powerless about all of this (after all, when has writing to the Minister of Health ever influenced legislation?) and want to take proactive steps, I encourage you to talk to your butcher, ask where your meat comes from, and refuse it if it comes from a factory farm. Vote with your wallet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)