A team of American and French scientists have just documented the fact that there are a lot of bacteria in cigarettes and that the bacterial population includes some human pathogens.  They don’t actually know if this leads to human disease- after all, these things are BURNED!.  Still it raises interesting issues. But at least the tobacco is not GMO!

OK, I am indulging in some irony here.  If you have shared my experience of having a wonderful dinner in Paris compromised by smoking neighbors at the closely-spaced tables you can relate.  European colonizers might have devastated native American peoples through disease and guns 500 years ago, but the original “Americans” got a little pay-back by introducing the Europeans to an addictive and carcinogenic product they had never known.

I have always found it fascinating that Europeans have mainly avoided GMO crops based on fears of theoretical problems that have not materialized over more than a decade of GMO commercialization, all the while allowing an extremely well-documented source of health problems to be widely used and imposed on non-smokers.  The “precautionary principle” that prevails in Europe does not seem to protect them from “documented risks”, only from “imagined risks”.  This new data on cigarettes should trigger precautionary responses that would say that all tobacco products should be banned until this bacterial risk can be assessed. I’m guessing that won’t happen.  

Read more of this story »

This is a followup post that will attempt to address some additional, wide-spread myths about the commercial sale of seed.  In this case the topic with be “GMO” seed improved through genetic engineering (an industry that is now 13 years old and which has been planted on well over 2 billion acres cumulatively, much of it in the developing world). As someone with substantial direct experience with this industry over the years, I’d like to try to speak to some distorted perspectives on this technology.

The First Biotech Crops

The four earliest commercial biotech crops commercialized in 1995/1996 were squash (virus resistant), corn (insect resistant), potatoes (insect resistant), and soybeans (herbicide tolerant). For the squash, corn and potatoes, commercialization was straight forward because it was already standard practice for farmers to buy new seed (tuber seed pieces in the case of potatoes) each year.

For soybeans there was a major commercialization challenge.  There was no question that the new technology was valuable — it would displace millions of pounds and hundreds of millions of dollars of herbicide sales.  It would also greatly increase the efficiency and convenience of producing soybeans. The challenge was that it was standard practice at the time for farmers to save-back some of their crop to use as seed the next year - more in some geographies than others.  If this practice were to continue with the new herbicide tolerant soybeans, it would have been very difficult for the company to recover its high risk investment in the new technology. Growers would simply buy seeds the first year, and then be set until they wanted to buy a new variety. This is not so different from the challenge that record labels with illegal file sharing via the internet.

The two standard solutions that most expected were either (a) charge enough upfront to make up for pervasive seed savings, or (b) raise the price of the herbicide to recover the genetic investment in that way. The first would have discouraged adoption; the second would have disrupted other crops and uses that also depended on the product. Instead, Monsanto tried something completely new (at least to the seed industry). They decided to charge a “technology fee” (”Tech Fee”) of a few $/bag and ask the farmers to sign a license agreement saying they would not save seed.  This was a pretty radical step at the time.  Monsanto also licensed the technology to many other seed companies and they too had to get growers to sign the licenses.

Read more of this story »

I think Bill may be a bit confused about Apple’s success…

Follow Mean Joe Green on Twitter at @GreenCartoons

Mean Joe Green Cartoon Archive

A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the USDA illegally approved Monsanto’s genetically modified, Roudup Ready beets.

Read more of this story »

I’ll come back to the Mycotoxin issue soon.  Instead, I’ll talk today about my serious worries about Climate Change.  

People involved in world agriculture have no patience with the supposed “debate” about climate change.  We are already seeing the effects, and the projections for the future are not encouraging.  The most troubling feature of this phenomenon (and one that occurs even if you don’t believe that it is human-driven) is that we are facing increasing variation in climatic events.  The yearly changes in average temperature or even annual rainfall may not be dramatic, but what we are anticipating is that there will be more extreme weather events.  Climate averages are not what matters for crop production - Variation is.  A few days of intense rain or heat at the wrong time can devastate a crop.  A few weeks of drought can do the same.  A single hail or frost event can make all the difference in what a farmer can harvest.  We have always had those risks for farming and only long term data will demonstrate whether there has been an increasing trend as is predicted.  For instance, It isn’t possible yet to say that the current, extended drought in Australia is caused by elevated greenhouse gasses, but some day we will know whether it was by looking back historically.  Of course that will be too late.  Our actions have to come now.  The other huge threat from climate change is that water supplies will be more limiting in many areas that are irrigated today.  Though that area is much smaller than rain-fed areas, it is very important to the food supply.

Some have predicted that “Global warming” and elevated CO2 will boost crop production in certain areas.  There might be some occasions where higher temperatures will enhance some yields in normally cold areas, but if the warmth comes with other extreme weather events, the benefits will be diminished.  It also turns out that plants can’t really take full advantage of high CO2 levels.  Basically,  there is no real “up-side” of climate change for farming.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/27/food-supply-worries-of-an-agricultural-scientist-part-3-climate-change/feed/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/10/macdonald%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpesticide-conundrum%e2%80%9d-and-the-solution-it-will-probably-not-pursue-part-2/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/10/macdonald%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpesticide-conundrum%e2%80%9d-and-the-solution-it-will-probably-not-pursue-part-2/#comments Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:33:54 +0000 Steve Savage http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/10/macdonald%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpesticide-conundrum%e2%80%9d-and-the-solution-it-will-probably-not-pursue-part-2/

This is a follow-up to a previous blog about a pesticide reduction commitment that McDonalds has made and why that will be challenging in terms of their potato supplies and quality.

Roundup Ready® soybeans were commercialized in 1996 and quickly came to dominate plantings in the US, Argentina and Brazil. NewLeaf® insect resistant potatoes were also introduced that year. These potatoes were genetically engineered to produce the same Bt protein insecticide that was used as a spray-on product on potatoes and which was also approved for Organic use. The second generation of GMO potatoes was on its way around 1999, which also protected against the key potato leaf roll virus, which required spraying to control the aphids that spread the virus.  Potato growers I interviewed at that time were excited about these technologies. Without having to spray for these two primary pests, biological control was largely taking care of the rest of their insect pest issues. They were also glad because they didn’t have to spend the money on most of their normal insecticide sprays.

This seemingly happy scenario came to an abrupt halt in 2000. Anti-GMO activism was starting to build and the leadership of McDonald’s got an arrogantly insufficient response from the leadership of Monsanto when they asked what was going to be done about the situation. McDonald’s defaulted to the “brand protection” mode and with three phone calls to the major frozen French fry suppliers, killed GMO potatoes in the US and Canada (Frito Lay and other brands joined in the defacto ban). That was only possible because increasing GMO potatoes was so much slower than increasing seeded crops and so only 5% of the crop was biotech. McDonald’s and all other fast food restaurants could never afford to ban the GMO ingredients that were in their frying oil or high fructose corn sweeteners because biotech adoption was so rapid for soy and corn. So McDonald’s still sells many products from GMO crops, just not potatoes because that would be much higher profile. There is absolutely no health risk issue here, but there is at least some irony.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/10/macdonald%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cpesticide-conundrum%e2%80%9d-and-the-solution-it-will-probably-not-pursue-part-2/feed/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/09/international-paper-growing-genetically-engineered-frankenforests/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/09/international-paper-growing-genetically-engineered-frankenforests/#comments Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:44:44 +0000 Cindy Tickle http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/09/international-paper-growing-genetically-engineered-frankenforests/

I can’t believe what I read on Bloomberg.com, “International Paper’s ArborGen joint venture with MeadWestvaco Corp. and New Zealand’s Rubicon Ltd. is seeking permission from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to sell the first genetically engineered forest trees outside China.”  What?  International Paper?  It can’t be?  The world’s largest pulp and paper maker promotes itself as an environmentally responsible company, but now, it appears the company is following in the footsteps of Monsanto and genetically modified crops.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/09/09/international-paper-growing-genetically-engineered-frankenforests/feed/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/08/07/should-charismatic-megafauna-be-the-face-of-climate-change/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/08/07/should-charismatic-megafauna-be-the-face-of-climate-change/#comments Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:36:33 +0000 Steve Savage http://sustainablog.org/2009/08/07/should-charismatic-megafauna-be-the-face-of-climate-change/

A polar bear is the perfect example of “Charismatic Megafauna” - the kind of animal whose image can easily be used to generate sympathy.  I care about polar bears as much as anyone, but I’m a little concerned about how images of animals like this are being used to promote Climate Change awareness and to fund-raise for environmental organizations. If we are going to make the personal life-style changes, the new business strategies, and the public policy decisions to counter this threat, we need to do it with a clear-eyed understanding of what is at stake.  The “faces” we should be thinking about are those of starving people in poor nations.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/08/07/should-charismatic-megafauna-be-the-face-of-climate-change/feed/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/07/27/would-you-eat-cloned-fruit/ http://sustainablog.org/2009/07/27/would-you-eat-cloned-fruit/#comments Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:26:35 +0000 Steve Savage http://sustainablog.org/2009/07/27/would-you-eat-cloned-fruit/

Cloned asian pears in New Zealand (photo Steve Savage)

OK, I’ll admit it.  That question and the picture caption are a little bit manipulative because few people know that all the major fruit crops are technically “cloned” because they have to be to get the varieties we want.  If you take the seed of a Fuji apple and plant it, the tree you will eventually grow will not make Fuji apples.

It will be something new because when the apple flower was pollinated there was a new combination of genes from the male and female flower.  Its the same reason our kids don’t come out exactly like either parent.  So, for millennia, people have been propagating the fruit varieties they liked by making cuttings or grafting or some other way to keep the identical genetics of the desirable fruit.

So, there really isn’t anything creepy about eating cloned fruit, but because I use the emotive term, “cloned,” I can usually get a negative response.  Why do I mess with farming-naive people this way?  I do it to make the point that if you want to understand controversial issues about food and the environment, you need to be vigilant about being manipulated by emotive terms.

I find this to be particularly true about the anti-GMO camp.  Its one thing to make an argument, but the reason that many people are afraid of these things is that they have been given a healthy dose of disinformation, often through the use of emotive terms that don’t really convey information as much as they do fear.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://sustainablog.org/2009/07/27/would-you-eat-cloned-fruit/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/07/11/food-inc-the-companion-guide/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/07/11/food-inc-the-companion-guide/#comments Sat, 11 Jul 2009 05:57:19 +0000 Jamie Ervin http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/07/11/food-inc-the-companion-guide/ Finally, it’s in my hands.  I’ve been waiting for what feels like EONS for my copy of Food, Inc. (Edited by Karl Weber) to arrive.  I first laid eyes on this delightful book on a shopping trip to Whole Foods Market and was prompted by husband to not buy it that day because surely we could get our hands on it for less.  Once again, he was right.

The book is a companion to help one further explore the issues raised in the documentary, Food, Inc. Starring Eric Schlosser and directed by Robert Kenner.  I haven’t yet had the opportunity to watch the documentary, but I’m near to frothing and not sure I can wait for it to hit DVD and my Netflix queue.

The companion book contains 13 essays to explore the facts behind the problems we see in the news every day, issues like hunger, human rights, tainted food and pollution.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/07/11/food-inc-the-companion-guide/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/26/food-policy-friday-barack-obamas-advisors-have-ties-to-monsanto/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/26/food-policy-friday-barack-obamas-advisors-have-ties-to-monsanto/#comments Fri, 26 Jun 2009 17:04:10 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/26/food-policy-friday-barack-obamas-advisors-have-ties-to-monsanto/ There’s an organic garden on Barack Obama’s lawn. The First Family eats local, organic, and seasonal food.

So why did the President’s scientific advisory team for last fall’s election include Sharon Long, a former member of Monsanto’s board of directors?

And why did Obama recently appoint Barbara Schaal, a plant geneticist with connections to Monsanto, to his Science and Technology Advisory Council?

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/26/food-policy-friday-barack-obamas-advisors-have-ties-to-monsanto/feed/ http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/06/18/report-genetically-modified-gm-crops-are-harmful-to-your-health/ http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/06/18/report-genetically-modified-gm-crops-are-harmful-to-your-health/#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2009 10:13:28 +0000 Joe Mohr http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/06/18/report-genetically-modified-gm-crops-are-harmful-to-your-health/ The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has recently reported a link between genetically modified (GM) foods and adverse health effects. The AAEM is advising precaution because GM foods have not been properly tested for human consumption and because there is significant evidence of probable harm. Therefore they advise:

Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.

Physicians to consider the possible role of GM foods in the disease processes of the patients they treat and to document any changes in patient health when changing from GM food to non-GM food.

Our members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.

For a moratorium on GM food, implementation of immediate long term independent safety testing, and labeling of GM foods, which is necessary for the health and safety of consumers.

But why should GM producers like Monsanto be concerned with this? One Monsanto official told the New York Times that the corporation should not have to take responsibility for the safety of its food products.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://planetsave.com/blog/2009/06/18/report-genetically-modified-gm-crops-are-harmful-to-your-health/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/03/wheatless-wednesday-6-reasons-to-reject-monsantos-roundup-ready-wheat/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/03/wheatless-wednesday-6-reasons-to-reject-monsantos-roundup-ready-wheat/#comments Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:57:45 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/03/wheatless-wednesday-6-reasons-to-reject-monsantos-roundup-ready-wheat/

Last month, Canada, the United States, and Australia announced unprecedented plans to join forces and commercialize genetically-engineered wheat, saying that biotechnology was crucial to the future of the wheat industry. The National Farmers Union of Canada, however, immediately refuted the tri-country claim, pointing out “the overwhelming majority of farmers in Canada are still opposed to the introduction of genetically-modified wheat.”

On June 1, fifteen organizations across Canada, the United States and Australia publicly confirmed that opposition with the release of “A Definitive Global Rejection of Genetically Engineered Wheat“, a powerful document speaking out against biotech wheat.

But the battle against GM wheat is not a simple one, nor is it restrained to select countries.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/06/03/wheatless-wednesday-6-reasons-to-reject-monsantos-roundup-ready-wheat/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/29/food-policy-friday-call-to-action-against-bayers-glufosinate-resistant-ll62-rice/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/29/food-policy-friday-call-to-action-against-bayers-glufosinate-resistant-ll62-rice/#comments Fri, 29 May 2009 17:17:10 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/29/food-policy-friday-call-to-action-against-bayers-glufosinate-resistant-ll62-rice/ The chemical giant Bayer — the same Bayer which brought you aspirin, heroin and mustard gas, and currently manufactures a wide variety of pesticides, herbicides, polyurethanes and other questionable chemicals — has wrapped their toxic fingers around our rice.

This is nothing new. The company’s glufosinate-resistant LL62 genetically modified rice isn’t commercially grown, but that doesn’t mean that it hasn’t already entered the global food supply.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/29/food-policy-friday-call-to-action-against-bayers-glufosinate-resistant-ll62-rice/feed/ http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/05/18/the-future-of-food-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/ http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/05/18/the-future-of-food-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/#comments Mon, 18 May 2009 07:00:22 +0000 Becky Striepe http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/05/18/the-future-of-food-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/ I just finished watching the documentary The Future of Food. The film goes into the safety and ethical issues behind patenting genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and introducing them into our food supply. Check out the trailer:
This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.
If you want to watch the whole film, it’s available for free on Hulu! The facts about Monsanto and the GMO industry are pretty infuriating, but the film ends with an optimistic call to action. We can combat companies like Monsanto by voting with our pocketbooks and making our voices heard!

Read more of this story »

]]> http://ecolocalizer.com/2009/05/18/the-future-of-food-and-what-you-can-do-about-it/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/15/food-policy-friday-united-states-australia-and-canada-announce-joint-efforts-to-develop-genetically-modified-wheat/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/15/food-policy-friday-united-states-australia-and-canada-announce-joint-efforts-to-develop-genetically-modified-wheat/#comments Fri, 15 May 2009 20:27:19 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/15/food-policy-friday-united-states-australia-and-canada-announce-joint-efforts-to-develop-genetically-modified-wheat/ We’ve talked a lot about genetically modified crops here at Eat. Drink. Better — the ongoing battle in the EU over Monsanto’s MON-810 maize, Obama’s refusal to halt genetic engineering in the US sugar-beet industry, and the politics behind it all.

But one frankenfood we haven’t discussed is wheat. Why? Well, mainly because it doesn’t exist.  There simply aren’t any commercially-available strains of genetically modified wheat available.

The United States, Canada, and Australia want to change that.  In an unprecedented joint statement released yesterday, top wheat organizations from the three countries announced that they intend to “work toward the goal of synchronized commercialization of biotech traits in our wheat crops…we believe it is in all of our best interests to introduce biotech wheat varieties in a coordinated fashion.”

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/05/15/food-policy-friday-united-states-australia-and-canada-announce-joint-efforts-to-develop-genetically-modified-wheat/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/16/genetically-modified-crops-a-danger-or-an-agricultural-right/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/16/genetically-modified-crops-a-danger-or-an-agricultural-right/#comments Thu, 16 Apr 2009 13:57:38 +0000 Kay Sexton http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/16/genetically-modified-crops-a-danger-or-an-agricultural-right/ Germany is the latest country to object to genetically modified crops. There’s a small but powerful European group battling against the planting of commonly-grown pest- resistant staple foods, and the latest mutiny by the German Agriculture Ministry has resulted in the banning of MON 810 – sold under the trade-name YieldGard, a genetically modified corn variety.

The Agriculture Minister, Ilse Aigner, declared that the Ministry had concluded that sufficient evidence existed to support arguments that MON 810 posed a danger to the wider environment. The crop is grown in less that 0.2% of Germany’s cornfields, but even so, the ban is based on the claim that the genetic modification is harmful to aquatic wildlife.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/16/genetically-modified-crops-a-danger-or-an-agricultural-right/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/15/germany-to-join-other-european-countries-in-ban-against-monsantos-genetically-modified-mon-810-corn/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/15/germany-to-join-other-european-countries-in-ban-against-monsantos-genetically-modified-mon-810-corn/#comments Wed, 15 Apr 2009 21:35:15 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/15/germany-to-join-other-european-countries-in-ban-against-monsantos-genetically-modified-mon-810-corn/ In the European Union, there is only one permissible genetically-modified crop — and that is Monsanto’s MON 810 engineered corn.  But current law allows individual countries to bar the production of genetically-modified crops, and the MON 810 ban has been gaining momentum throughout the continent. This is despite the European Union’s continuous fight to force GM production, such as in the recent failed attempt to overturn Austria and Hungary’s ban.

Late last month, Luxembourg joined Hungary, France, Austria and Greece in banning Monsanto’s corn.  According to Luxembourg’s Health Minister Mars Di Bartolomeo, studies addressing the grain’s safety have failed to “conclude that MON810 is completely innocuous”.

Yesterday, Germany brought the number of dissenting countries to six by also banning MON 810.  German Agriculture Minister, Ilse Aigner, went a step beyond Luxembourg’s position, and stated outright that she feels “there are just reasons to assume that the genetically modified maize MON 810 represents a danger for the environment.”

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/15/germany-to-join-other-european-countries-in-ban-against-monsantos-genetically-modified-mon-810-corn/feed/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/06/obamas-administration-refuses-to-halt-production-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-roundup-ready-sugar-beets/ http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/06/obamas-administration-refuses-to-halt-production-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-roundup-ready-sugar-beets/#comments Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:44:31 +0000 Gina Munsey http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/06/obamas-administration-refuses-to-halt-production-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-roundup-ready-sugar-beets/ Recent data showing sugar’s rising popularity over high fructose corn syrup is good news, right?  Not if that sugar is genetically-modified.  In fact, if you’ve purchased beet sugar recently, there’s a very good chance that you’ve unintentionally consumed a genetically-modified product. Industry statistics show that more than half of the sugar beets grown in the US in 2008 were genetically-modified varieties.

If that isn’t enough to make you cringe, consider the following: most of those engineered beets were Roundup-resistant, courtesy of agri-tech giant Monsanto.  Last autumn under the Bush administration, the USDA approved the Monsanto seed without preparing a standard Environmental Impact Statement.   But certainly President Obama, with an organic garden on the White House Lawn, would have done things differently.

Wouldn’t he?

Read more of this story »

]]> http://eatdrinkbetter.com/2009/04/06/obamas-administration-refuses-to-halt-production-of-monsantos-genetically-modified-roundup-ready-sugar-beets/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/27/gmos-banned-from-delaware-wildlife-refuge/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/27/gmos-banned-from-delaware-wildlife-refuge/#comments Fri, 27 Mar 2009 12:32:19 +0000 Kay Sexton http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/27/gmos-banned-from-delaware-wildlife-refuge/

The US Fish & Wildlife Service has been told by a Federal Court that it must stop planting genetically modified crops at Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge on the west shore of the Delaware Bay.  There are more than eighty other national wildlife refuges growing genetically modified crops and this landmark ruling may be used to prevent them continuing the research plantings.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/27/gmos-banned-from-delaware-wildlife-refuge/feed/