Food Safety
-
Tests Reveal Poison in Nearly All Campbell's Soup
-
Industry Disavows Smart Choices Campaign
-
FDA Hits Back Against Stupid Food Labeling
More GE Crops, More Pesticides
Published November 20, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
A new report by Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at the Organic Center, says that genetically engineered crops are forcing use of pesticides rapidly upwards.
The report, titled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" and principally informed by data from the USDA, finds that GE crops have caused an increase in the use of herbicide in the US of 383 million pounds over the 13 years GE crops have been used commercially.
But what about all that talk of GE corn and cotton driving the use of insecticides to celebrated lows? According to the report, the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds is responsible for the dramatic herbicide upswing, a phenomenon that will not be news to farmers.
"Weed control is now widely acknowledged as a serious management problem within GE cropping systems," the report's preface states. "But skyrocketing herbicide use is news to the public at large, which still harbors the illusion, fed by misleading industry claims and advertising, that biotechnology crops are reducing pesticide use."
Two GMO Questions, One Big Muddle
Published November 13, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
We've been discussing genetically modified foods like it's going out of style here on change.org's sustainable food blog.
There is, indeed, much to discuss; there are many threads to the conversation, which, when not teased apart, can lead to a muddled confusion about what we are all actually discussing.
Critics of GM foods tend to focus on two important concerns: the uncertain safety of the crops and the intellectual property (IP) rights of the companies creating them. So these are the big questions: (1) are GM foods safe? And (2) will companies maintain a financial stranglehold over the users and would-be researchers of GM seeds?
Winners of Ashoka's 'GMO Risk or Rescue?' Competition Announced
Published November 10, 2009 @ 06:00AM PT
The Ashoka Changemakers Website, which describes itself as a "community of action where we all collaborate on solutions," runs a range of specific competitions on a wide variety of subject matter. Potential changemakers enter their solutions to the issue at hand, and readers vote on which twenty entries deserve accolades.
A contest of interest to us here, titled "GMO Risk or Rescue? Helping Consumers Decide," just announced its winners after over 14,000 readers helped decide on the worthiest entries.
The grand prize goes to a blog called biofortified, for its entry titled "stronger plants, stronger science, and stronger communication!" A group blog addressing issues of genetic engineering in agriculture and plant biology, Biofortified claims itself to be the most "dedicated effort to discuss genetic engineering on the web." The organizers aim to expand their blogger network to bring the conversation on genetic engineering to wider audiences. These savvy bloggers will receive a grant of $1,500 and a get to participate in a conversation with food journalist Michael Pollan.
The competition's two runners-up are Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and Non-GMO Project. The top three winners have all won an enhanced social media training session with Ashoka and will be mentioned in a one-page ad in the Stanford Social Innovation Review magazine. The 17 honorable mentions will receive a social media training session with Ashoka.
In Response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" Part 2
Published August 28, 2009 @ 02:45PM PT
(This is the second in a two-part response to "The Omnivore's Delusion" article written by Blake Hurst, a self-admitted "industrial" farmer from Missouri, a few weeks back for The Journal of American Enterprise Institute. The first part of my response can be found here.)
To continue my critique of Hurt's article, I'd like to now discuss the way he characterizes the acute need for the continuation of industrial animal agriculture. I purposely chose not to deal with this topic in my first post as I knew it would require its own space and time.
Part of the problem with agriculture today, as Nicholas Kristof points out in his recent New York Times Op-Ed, is that the profession has largely lost its soul over the past several decades as industrial farming practices have taken hold. This is not to say that there aren't any family farming operations in this country--in fact, there are many--but the way that we view the production of food has changed dramatically. There is no place where this is more true than in animal agriculture.
It's quite clear from Hurst's article that he is no animal rights activist. In his view, animals are commodities that are to be raised in a manner that maximizes the financial return for farmers with very little (legitimate) concern paid to the environmental and food safety costs incurred by this kind of production.
This is part of the lost soul of American agriculture. Where once farmers treated animals well in order to ensure a long, healthy and productive life, now many farmers choose to treat their animals as badly as possible while still turning a profit. We have lost respect for the key role animals have played (and always will play) in the history of our agricultural progression.
Senate Cuts Animal ID Funding By Half
Published August 05, 2009 @ 02:05PM PT
Woohoo! I get to say nice things about the Senate!
I'm pleased to report that my usual causticity can be suspended for the duration of this post to applaud the Senate's unanimous consent vote to cut funding for the National Animal ID System. Go, Senate!
Jill Richardson at LaVidaLocavore has reposted the press release by R-CALF USA, the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, and I think that the most salient point in the entire debate is encapsulated in this paragraph of their statement, here:
3) No food safety benefits. NAIS will not prevent food borne illnesses from e. coli or salmonella, because the contamination occurs at the slaughterhouse, while NAIS tracking ends at the time of slaughter. Thus, NAIS will neither prevent the contamination nor increase the government's ability to track contaminated meat back to its source. In addition, NAIS will hurt efforts to develop safer, decentralized local food systems. ...
If the program fails in its main, stated goal, if it is in fact structured such that failure is inevitable, what are we spending all this money for? As a liberal, progressive, believer in the possibility of government to do good, I have a deep and abiding interest in money given to the government not being wasted. When it's wasted, it creates an instant opportunity cost against something good and useful being done with that money.
Of the money that remains in the program, the Senate directives limit its use to rule-making activities, and on that front, I have a suggestion: lay the groundwork to institute premise ID, instead of animal ID.
I was talking a couple months ago with Margaret Krome, my former internship supervisor and policy program director at the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, about how NAIS implementation has gone in Wisconsin. She said that at this point, they've just done premise registration, which sidesteps many of the concerns raised directly by Amish communities and does actually provide a public health benefit.
Krome explained that when there were animal disease outbreaks, the premise registry let public health officials target their notification efforts to the right people. This registration simply lets officials know that there are livestock on the property and what type. That's actually useful to know should there be an outbreak of hoof and mouth disease, scabies, or what have you. It also isn't burdensome to farmers, needing to be neither expensive nor time-consuming. See? Useful.
Anyway, cheers again to the Senate for showing such good sense. It seems in short supply these days.(Photo credit: kimberlyfaye on Flickr.)
Organic Complications
Published August 03, 2009 @ 12:03PM PT
So, there was a very narrowly focused literature review put out by Britain's pro-GMO Food Standards Agency that was widely reported to claim that there weren't any health benefits from organic food.
It shouldn't be a surprise that the FSA's theory of pesticide is "don't worry, be happy", as Geoffrey Lean of the Telegraph notes, and indeed the report completely ignores the potential health benefits of lower pesticide exposure. As Lean says in closing;
... It reminds me of a minister who used to complain that there was a "myth" that pesticides were "toxic". What, I asked him, would be the use of one that wasn't? Answer came there none.
Worse, the review seems to have excluded studies indicating a greater nutrient density in organic foods. Other nutrient differences reported are probably a result of the fact that conventional agriculture destroys and degrades soil, in a number of ways, and food managed solely for high yields in dying soil doesn't appear to be as good for you as food grown in healthier soil.
Has it, however, been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that there are nutritional differences between conventional and organic foods over and above the products of our chemical warfare industry? Some evidence suggests that's the case, but as many have pointed out, the body of research to date is minimal. So if the claim that organics are more nutritious (as opposed to less contaminated) needs more support, the claim that they aren't is on even thinner ice.
The House Food Safety Bill in Brief
Published August 01, 2009 @ 02:19PM PT
First, the food safety bill wasn't going to pass. Then it did.
The Agriculture Committee, including the ranking minority member, has had a great deal of input apparently, and they are well satisfied.
Eddie Gehman Kohan of Obamafoodorama, writing at Civil Eats, notes again the importance of putting the force of law behind food recalls. Now, even recalls involving deadly bacterial contamination, such as recent E. coli scares, are entirely voluntary and do not require retailers to stop selling products that may be affected.
The Consumers Union is pleased and Rep. Henry Waxman has given his assurances that the bill isn't intended to interfere with standard organic practices or the maintenance of on-farm biodiversity.
Nonetheless, as LaVidaLocavore's Jill Richardson points out, the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has ongoing concerns about the flat facility fees that won't fund the program but will mostly end up collecting fees from the greater number of small processing facilities that exist. Further, that organic farmers won't be exempted from following new standards that contradict with established organic practices, potential barriers to farm-to-institution provisioning, traceability exemptions for products that are identified by origin all the way to the consumer and the likelihood that product-specific exemptions have been handed out unfairly.
The Washington Post has an overview of the main provisions, which include an increase in the frequency of FDA inspections at high risk processing facilities.
Hopefully, they'll rub the burrs off in the Senate, but there's some important things in this bill.(Photo credit: kimberlyfaye on Flickr.)
