USDA: Friend or Genetically Modified Foe?
Bear with me, this is long but informative…read on if you dare.
It is do or let GMOs die time at the United States Department of Agriculture, and they are letting you weigh in on their decision. The USDA’s mission is to utilize public policy, science, and management to provide leadership on food agriculture, and natural resources. Yet organizations like the Center for Food Safety have not been satisfied with their leadership, as is the European Union among other large entities. The current debate revolves around Genetically Engineered (GE) crops that were previously approved by the USDA as safe. But after being sued in 2006 by the Center for Food Safety and with pressure from a multitude of organizations and farmers, they are reviewing their approval of Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa. Now is your time to send them your thoughts on GE crops and their process for approval, but your time to act ends tomorrow, March 3rd!
Genetically Engineered Crops aka “Frankenfood”
Genetically modified organisms have been growing exponentially in the United States since the early 2000s in the field of agriculture. Some argue that Mendel, who originally discovered hybridization and gene characteristics in plants, was in fact creating GE crops. Yet the majority of scientists in the field disagree, they suggest it is when laboratories started manipulating the specific genes within a plant and injecting foreign genetic material. For example, scientists input salmon DNA into tomato plants to increase their cold weather resistance. This type of gene manipulation is what the European Union has banned from their food system and US food exports, calling it “Frankenfood.” While in the US very little of this seething debate was heard and companies such as Monsanto were privately patenting a large variety of seeds they claim as their own.
What are the risks of GE Crops?
For the average consumer, first and foremost your health is at risk. Next is the integrity of our food system as a whole. And of course the larger underlying threat is our ecological system and the long-term irreversible impact GE crops have already had in North America. If you are a farmer, the risks are a hundredfold.
Health
Human health issues always get a great deal of attention, and are often the primary reason action is taken when ecological disaster arises. For GE crops, this is a sensitive issue in the United States. Scientific research originally studying the long-term health impacts of GE crops was put under intense scrutiny by GE crop companies, and ultimately their funding has been revoked or minimized. Their decisive response has been to align themselves with highly respected Universities across North America (since GE crops are not allowed in the majority of developed nations) and fund only GE crop research that would shed a positive light on its nutritional and ecological ‘value’ as the company deems appropriate and favorable. This type of controlled science is unlikely to produce a result that will benefit the general public’s knowledge base and health. The original studies and those conducted in Europe prior to banning GE crops demonstrated an increase in allergies, carcinogens and cancer rates, and an overall increase in chemical build-up in the body’s fatty tissue leading to a variety of health issues.
Food System
Our food system is and has been in great peril since the 1970s food crisis. The major issues such as intensive chemical dependency, unsustainable land use, and unjust farmer-company relationships have sprouted up in literature by Michael Pollan, Eric Schlosser, and Francis Moore Lappe and movies like Food Inc. Movements revolting against this system, that cry for something more just, such as Slow Food and Slow Money, are only seedlings relative to the extensive power the major corporations hold over our food system in the United States.
History of our Food System
Let’s take a quick look at history to help put the unraveling of our food system into context. In the 1970s the price of oil flew sky high, demolishing the savings of farmers across the Midwest, America’s breadbasket. Their reliance on petroleum to run their machinery and utilize pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers left many families broken and in debt. Major corporations took advantage of their downfall by purchasing their land and designing a deal that would lure debt-ridden farmers under the company’s control. The main strategy was to purchase the land, and then allow the farmer to stay on the land and ‘lease’ it from the company. In return, the farmer would grow the crops the company demanded in the method the company deemed appropriate. The seeds, machinery, and upkeep of the land were all on the farmer and still are today. The United States transformed from a land of opportunity filled with small and medium-sized farms to a privately-owned land that could be yours (partially via lease) for a price.
Manipulation of our Food System
The food system that these companies have manipulated to their best profit margin is dependent upon their crops, their specialized fertilizers, their herbicides, and their desired management practices. GE crops made the monopolization of agriculture all the easier for these companies. Now a company, for example Monsanto, designs a seed that has a special mutation to fight disease and pests. They also design a special herbicide that will kill everything except that special seed. The farmer is now locked into part of the company’s system. They must purchase Monsanto seed, as Monsanto has dictated or aligned with land owners to dictate, and then purchase the Monsanto herbicide since it is the only product on the market that will work with their seed. Did I mention that Monsanto has designed the majority of these seeds to be “terminator” seeds, meaning they only last one season and cannot be saved to be replanted the next summer? This fact alone led to a revolt across all of India. They were outraged that they could not practice seed saving. A practice in the US that gets you on Monsanto’s notorious “Blacklist”, where they block you from customers, other farmers, and buyers of your crop, not a pleasant place to be for farmers who work with large risks of debt in their business.
Profiteers of our Food System Hint: its not you.
These companies also failed to mention two other major factors that will determine a farmer’s profit margin, other than the requirement to be locked into purchasing their products. First, the farmer’s relationship with the land is permanently altered. The companies will dictate the seeds based on desired stocks, their own Research and Development (which they test on farmers, not at their own testing facilities), among other ‘confidential’ factors. Meaning a farmer may be required to grow soy for 10 years straight with no regard to the land’s natural nutrient cycle or capacity. Soy, the one of the largest monocultures in the United States, requires a 5 year replenishment cycle for soil. If you have ever driven through Iowa, you will see miles and miles of soy, year after year. This requires the farmer to pay for large quantities of fertilizer to simulate the land’s nutrient cycle every year. So farmers have not escaped from their main source of vulnerability in the 1970s; the price of oil.
The second major factor is the power companies hold over the grain silos and the price of a crop on particular days. The unethical nature of this initially sounds like a conspiracy theory, but after speaking with farmers in company-infested farm towns, it turns out that it is more than true, it is deeply disturbing. They will purposefully manipulate the price of a crop based on the farmer and their relationship or lack their of with the company, a collaboration among industry giants that keeps farmers out of the marketplace who do not concede to their ‘rules of the game’.
Ecology
GE crops impact on the environment is not understudied, despite companies such as Monsanto’s best efforts. GE crops have been proven to mate with other plants, are not contained by 15 foot high wind barriers (previously deemed suitable by Monsanto, Dupont, and after closed door discussions the USDA), and leave an array of chemicals, unusual residue and genes in the soil beyond conventional agriculture’s significant impact on the land. The most important fact to keep aware of is that GE crops are capable of contaminating organic agriculture, meaning unless every plant is tested there is no way to determine if certified organic food in the US is free from GE crops. Farmer’s have sued Monsanto for contamination and Monsanto has sued farmers claiming patent infringement, every case to date Monsanto has won. Most often because the legal fees and barrage that they throw at the farmers literally put them out of business. The US has not determined sufficient containment procedures, resulting in the contamination of an entire portion of an island in Hawaii. This also means that GE crop seeds are spreading to plants in the wild. Since not all of their seed are terminator seeds, it is an unseen and unknown issue that is slowly creeping through our road ditches and grain spills.
This article’s intent is not to scare you, it is to make you aware of a major issue within our food system. Unfortunately, the budgets of large companies has consistently overridden the concern for the well-being of the general public. GE crops were originally touted as the cure for world hunger and a source for alternative fuel sources to eliminate the need for oil. To date, they have accomplished neither, and in the majority of cases made each issue worse. Mexico’s farmers did not appreciate the US’s ‘aid’ of goodwill terminator seeds when their rural communities tried to harvest their corn crop the following year. Farmer’s to date are more reliant on oil as is their supply chain, than in the 1970s.
The wonder and awe of our scientific games is long gone in the world of GE crops.
Current Debate – Act by March 3rd
If this has you concerned, than I encourage you to review and decide if you would like to take action. You may do so by telling the USDA that you support the Center for Food Safety’s position that GE crops, specifically Monsanto’s GE Roundup Ready alfalfa should not be grown in the United States. Please review the True Food Network’s write-up and sign by tomorrow, March 3rd if you would like to support their efforts. Their website has an overview of the debate and a pre-written letter that you can email through their website.
Shopping Tips
For those of you who would still like to eat your food in good conscience here are some important shopping tips for selecting food.
1) Numbers matter! Check for these hints on your produce at the grocery store:
If it begins with a…
9 = Organically Grown
4 = Conventionally Grown
8=Genetically Engineered
2) The EU has banned GE crops, so although I encourage you to shop locally, seasonally, and to get to know your farmers and food system, EU products outright state that they are not made with GE crops. So feel free to use this as a good guideline. Many companies based in the US have different EU and US brands, selling the GE crops to US markets, so finding EU approved companies isn’t enough. Check the product for information.
3) The Shop non-GMO App for IPhones and consumer guides can be found at The Institute for Responsible Technology
Of course local, organic, seasonal food choices will always help, but you may be surprised (possibly horrified) to learn how GE crops have infiltrated your diet. So I encourage you to read about it, speak out about it, and continue to take an educated stand on this issue. Please note that the US had a national discussion about labeling GE food, but after significant publicity efforts and closed door discussions, the government decided there were no additional dangers. The opposite conclusion the EU reached after their extensive scientific research into the issue.
The United States Department of Agriculture is in the midst of a discussion that will ultimately determine its stance on food safety. What will be your role?
Toyota Prius Greenest Car in 2010?
Consumer Reports announced it list of top cars in various categories, including green. The Toyota Prius received the award for being the top Green Car in 2010. This is the seventh year in a row that the Prius has won this award in this category.
It’s still the most fuel-efficient car in our Ratings, getting 44 mpg overall. That distinction helped it earn our pick in this category for the seventh straight year, the longest of any current model. In addition, the Prius is a pleasant car to drive, with a roomy interior, a steady ride, hatchback versatility, and excellent reliability and crash-test results. The 2010 redesign also gave it a more solid feel and a dedicated EV mode that allows it to run longer on electric power at low speeds, an advantage mainly in slow, congested traffic.
I would question the reliability aspect because of the recent recalls, but it seems pretty apparent that the Prius seems to be considered the best “green” car by many, not just Consumer Reports.
I have not driven a Prius or driven in one, but I have not had good experiences with people I know who drive them. It’s great that people want to buy a car that uses less gas mileage and is more eco-friendly, but some people buy these cars like they do new electronic devices. Another thing that made me a little frustrated is the fact that some feel they can drive more just because they now have a more gas efficient car. This mentality negates the whatever benefit you are receiving from having a more fuel efficient vehicle.
My experiences are with some of the owners of the Prius, not the car itself. Overall, the Prius seems like a pretty good vehicle and great car to consider if in need of a new vehicle. I would still much rather have a full EV than just a hybrid, but they are still a few years away from hitting the market. It’s also good to find other ways than buying a new car to save on gas or avoid using a car at all. Some include biking, car pooling, public transportation and many other gas saving tips.
I decided to include a poll to get an idea of how you feel about the Prius being the top green car on the market.
Loading ...Sustainable Olympics? Hog(green)wash
The Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics & Paralympics have been under intense scrutiny, not due to questionable medals or poor refereeing, but for sustainability. Great Britain has been a vocal force among other parties, stating that Vancouver did not do enough in terms of sustainability. They promise that their upcoming Summer Olympics will be the most sustainable games yet. Is all of this just a public relations stunt or was Vancouver actually trying to make an effort during difficult economic times?
According to the Vancouver Olympics Committee, sustainability was a key consideration in the design and planning of the Olympics. You can actually follow their efforts via the Sustainability Reports they have consistently published. As the first Games to formally include this as not only a concern, but translate it into tangible action, their efforts are notable. The organizers of the Games have a portion of the Vancouver 2010 site dedicated to sustainability, including a sustainability star program for companies and/or organizations, as well as videos and tips on how to be eco-friendly while at the Olympics. Do the medals look a little funny this year? They are actually made from electronic waste, not too shabby if you ask me.
The Sustainability Stars program focuses on three key areas:
- Economic Benefit
- Environmental Stewardship & Impact
- Social Inclusion & Responsibility
Organizations’ efforts must include at least 2 of the 3 focal areas, produce a measurable outcome, and relate to the 2010 Winter Games. The submittals were then judged by a jury of government partners, corporate sponsors, external experts, and VANOC representatives.
Coke, who is working to become carbon neutral, was one of the company’s highlighted. Their efforts included new coolers and vending machines that reduced emissions by 5,600 metric tons, compostable food containers, recycling centers, and team uniforms made from recycled plastic. Their goal is to divert 95% of all waste from landfills, an incredibly high and difficult goal to achieve at a large-scale event with varied levels of eco-awareness. Although you may not drink Coke or agree with their global supply chain, the reduced impact on the environment through these actions is measurable and exciting.
Perhaps my favorite eco-effort of the games is the Power Smart Village by BC Hydro. They have a human-powered dance floor and an expression wall that looks like spray paint, but is actually transmitted through infrared technology. They also host a Home of the Future series that highlights futuristic eco-inventions. As a power company, their most significant contribution has been the reduction in energy used and the increase in renewable energy sources. It is estimated that these games will emit 1/10th of the CO2 emissions from power generation than previous Winter Games. This will make it the lowest CO2 Games contributor in modern history.
With large-scale design and accountability efforts such as these, it’s difficult to criticize their efforts. The Olympics and Paralympics require an extensive built-environment and land manipulation to take place. This along with the influx in population make it difficult to create a No Impact Games. If we are able to take what we have learned from Vancouver’s efforts and multiply them in the Games to come, eco-smart design will become the center of the Olympics and it will hopefully spread to our athletic facilities worldwide.
The Olympics and Paralympics truly are natural homes for sustainability. The Games are about Countries coming together and competing for the honor of being a true Olympian. If we can take this competitive, yet team-oriented mindset and apply it to our innovation efforts imagine the future Games. The Vancouver Games are not an example of large-scale greenwashing, they are developing the foundation for long-term change toward eco-friendly games. Hopefully Great Britain rises well to the challenge they have set up for themselves. We can all look forward to a healthy competition for winning the “green Games” title into the future.
Silexium Could Change Solar Panel Manufacture
Sixtron has recently developed a thin coating for solar cells called Silexium. This anti-reflective coating could make solar panels much more affordable.
The manufacture of solar cells now requires the use of saline gas to make anti-reflective coating, that is extremely dangerous as well as expensive. Silexium does not require silane to be present and could reduce the complexity and money required to make solar cells. This new coating would also provide more protection over the cells allow for possibly longer life and more power generated.
Sounds like a promising product that could help expand the usage of solar panels.
Amazon Starts Partnership with EPEAT
The Green Electronics Council announced that Amazon will now be partnering with with its green electronics certification EPEAT. After substantial growth during the 2009 year, this could solidfy EPEAT as one of the world’s top green electronics rating tool.
Amazon has already tagged more than 800 of their electronic products with one of EPEAT’s three ratings: Gold, Silver and Bronze. Each rating is now a search filter within their electronics section to help make it easy to find which products contain their rating.
As EPEAT continues to grow, it will be interesting to see the impact that it could have on manufacturers.
United Nations 15th Climate Change Conference Recap
The United Nations 15th Climate Change in Denmark (COP15) came to an end on December 18th leaving many feeling disappointed with the results. The long two weeks that strove to make a big difference on combating global climate change did not end in the manner so many thought it would.
The Copenhagen Accord is the final result that was drafted between several major countries including the US. Many of the tough provisions that were originally thought to be included in this agreement were removed because of conflicts between some of the nations. The deal set lower standards on climate changes and allowed many of the more developed nations to set their own targets. There will also be an initial $30 billion a year fund to help developing nations cope with the affects of the rapid climate change we are facing. This number will rise in 2020 and also be used to help slow down deforestation and having developing nations move to more green technologies.
One of the biggest complaints of this accord is that the temperature targets set for climate change are not strict enough and that this is not a legal binding document. That basically means that no nation is forced to follow it. There is also concern that some nations may be trying to prevent their emissions to be independently monitored.
With so little that seems to be gained from this accord, there are some still that feel that having all nations in the UN to sign this document is huge progress. Another good result of the document is that deforestation could drastically reduced in many developing nations.
Regardless of how many felt about the results of this conference, hopefully more change will continue to occur and next years conference will be more successful.
Green Paper Towels Not So Good?
According to a recent study done by Consumer Reports, paper towels made mostly from recycled paper only performed fairly compared to other paper towel brands that use virgin paper.
The study conducted a test on 21 different types of paper towels and performed a number of tests on them. The main test done to determine this rating was to determine how strong each paper towels hold up when scrubbing both dry and wet.
I’ve used a few of the green paper towels available on the market and they perform as I would expect them to. There is just no reason that paper towels need to be used in most situations when a reusable towel could be used in it’s place. That’s why paper towels in general should be avoided, even when they are made from recycled paper.
After watching the video above, I became really frustrated. It’s great that the major brands of paper towels can hold up against such tough conditions, but do you really need a paper towel to be able to do that? It’s bad enough that those brands use virgin paper when constructing their toilet paper, but most people don’t even use paper towels in the way they are testing.
I think the real question we need to be asking is do we need to even be using paper towels at all?
