Biotech firms have touted the potential of genetically engineered (GE) crops to address the global hunger crisis. Many hopes (and many more dollars) have been invested in the promise of GE technology to increase crop yields. According to a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), this technology has thus far failed to deliver.
To better understand these new findings, it is worth elucidating some of the murky terminology. In a recent radio interview, plant pathologist Dr. Pamela Ronald explains “there is nothing that [the typical American family] will eat tonight that is not genetically modified.” She goes on to clarify her use of the term: all but the most wild of crop varieties have been “genetically modified,” in the traditional sense, through conventional plant breeding between compatible species (to complicate matters, the term “genetically modified,” or GM, often refers to GE foods). This is in contrast to GE, or “transgenic” crops, created in laboratories by combining the genetic information of distinct, usually unrelated (a plant and a bacterium, for example), species. Read More >
Watch a short interview with Dr. Robert Lawrence, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future.
Lawrence discusses the nation’s water pollution and his involvement in the production of “Poisoned Waters,” a PBS FRONTLINE documentary that examines the increased hazards to human health and the ecosystem caused by decades of polluted runoff from agriculture, development and industries.
“Poisoned Waters,” premiers Tuesday, April 21, 2009 at 9:00 p.m. ET on PBS stations nationwide. Click here to check your local listings.
This is a very interesting two-part series from NPR discussing how the “green revolution” in India is unsustainable, and heading for ecological and economic collapse. India abandoned their traditional farming techniques in the 1960′s and 70′s with the hopes of producing more food by farming the American way: chemicals, high-yield seeds, and intensive irrigation. What they are discovering, however, is that this system of farming is heading towards complete collapse. Read More >
James McWilliams, the author of Thursday’s New York Times Op-Ed (which questioned whether free-range pork better and safer to eat than conventional pork) discussed how he came across the study used as background for his article. The interview was published in yesterday’s U.S. Food Policy blog. Mr. McWilliams said he came across the study, which was sponsored by the National Pork Board, independently. Today’s New York Times placed an Editors’ Note at the end of the Op-Ed along with a note at the top calling attention to the correction.
“An Op-Ed article last Friday, about pork, neglected to disclose the source of the financing for a study finding that free-range pigs were more likely than confined pigs to test positive for exposure to certain pathogens. The study was financed by the National Pork Board.”
Last Thursday, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof discussed the recent heightened interest in ensuring basic humane treatment practices in food animal production facilities. In November 2008, Californians overwhelmingly passed an animal rights ballot initiative requiring that chicken, pork and veal producers allow the animals enough room to stand, turn around and extend their limbs. The Humane Society advocates for similar legislation across the country.
Kristof credits consumer demand for better practices as the driver behind these efforts. “What we’re seeing now is an interesting moral moment: a grass-roots effort by members of one species to promote the welfare of others,” he writes. “Legislation is playing a role, with Europe scheduled to phase out bare wire cages for egg production by 2012, but consumer consciences are paramount. It’s because of consumers that companies like Burger King and Hardee’s are beginning to buy pork and eggs from producers that give space to their animals.” Read More >
Why didn’t Op-Ed author reveal National Pork Board paid for Trichinosis study?
Having spent the majority of my career as a journalist I tend to be skeptical of almost everything I hear or read. Over the years my “bull-crap” alarm has become quite sensitive and fairly accurate. This morning while reading James McWilliams’ “Free-Range Trichinosis” Op-Ed in the New York Times, my alarm went off so loud I think traffic outside my office came to a screeching halt.
There are many parts of the Op-Ed that are alarming, however, for brevity sake I’ll just focus on the most glaring offense. Dr. McWilliams claims that a recent study published in the journal Foodborne Pathogens and Disease “discovered” that out of more than 600 pigs tested two free-range pigs “carried the parasite trichinia” (which causes trichinosis) while no parasites were found in pigs raised in confinement. Here’s what pegged my meter, Dr. McWilliams never revealed who authored the study, let alone who paid for it. Leaving out the author or funder of a study is common practice in a news release, it usually means the writer is trying to keep something from her/his readers. I’ll be honest, I was surprised to see an important detail like that left out of an Op-Ed, especially one written for the New York Times. Turns out, the study’s lead author is Wondwossen Gebreyes, associate professor of veterinary preventive medicine at Ohio State University. Guess who paid for it? Yep, the National Pork Board. And if you read the study findings carefully, no where written is the word “carried the parasite trichinia.”
The study did find, however, that out of 324 free-range pigs and 292 confinement-pigs, two serum samples from the free-range swine were found to be “seropositive for Trichinella.” In laypersons terms, seropositive simply means antibodies for Trichinella were present in the serum. While likely, this does not necessarily mean that the animals carried the parasite.
This is an important misstatement of facts, considering the headline for the Op-Ed and the seriousness of the potentially deadly disease Trichinella can cause. Read the study for yourself, which also tested for “seropostivity” of Salmonella and Toxoplasma.
I wish the Pork Board would pay for a study that compared the immune systems of free-range pigs vs. confinement-pigs. I wonder if the fact that these antibodies are showing up in free-range pigs, may actually prove they have a robust immune system, strong enough to ward off many diseases, unlike their unfortunate cousins destined to live out their lives in confinement.
By the way, the authors of the study made it clear that this is a “preliminary study” which warrants the need for a “robust epidemiological study” to determine risk factors and “potential reemergence of parasitic pathogens.”
I think it’s dangerous to use “preliminary” studies to try to scare people into questioning any production method.
On Wednesday, Dr. Robert Lawrence, founding director of Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future (CLF), will join EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, former EPA Administer William Ruckelshaus, and HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims for a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington.
The event is being held to screen “Poisoned Waters,” a major PBS Frontline documentary on the effects of polluted runoff on the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound. The press conference will be webcast live beginning at 1 p.m. If you are interested in watching, here are the instructions for the webcast.
Poisoned Waters will be broadcast on PBS’ Frontline on Tuesday, April 21 from 9 to 11 p.m. ET. The trailer is available below. Dr. Lawrence was interviewed extensively by Frontline correspondent Hetrick Smith. He also will be on the Marc Steiner Show tonight!
Non-native oysters will not be introduced to the Chesapeake Bay, state officials and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced yesterday. For the past five years, state officials in Virginia and Maryland, along with the Corps of Engineers, have conducted a $17 million study on the feasibility of introducing the Crassostrea ariakensis species to the Bay to rebuild the oyster population. An article in today’s Washington Post quoted Roger Mann, a professor at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science, who discussed the implications of introducing the non-native species. “The problem is, with all of this, that you don’t really know until you do the experiment. Once you’ve done it, it’s too late.”
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC)applauded the decision in a news release issued yesterday. “This decision supports native oyster restoration and says no to further testing of Asian oysters unless it is conducted with no risk to the Bay,” said Roy Hoagland, CBF Vice President for Environmental Protection and Restoration. “Governors O’Malley (MD) and Kaine (VA) and Col. Anninos (Army Corps) have correctly recognized the dangers that non-native oysters pose as well as the enormous potential for restoration of the native population.” Read More >
In a piece published in Ethicurean yesterday, blogger and part-time farmer Bob Comis railed against the common argument that food from local, non-industrialized producers reflects the “true cost”—which includes environmental impacts, government subsidies on commodity crops, etc.
Comis argues that small farmers are making too much profit for meat production because they are “unwilling or unable to scale up to reasonable production levels.” He doesn’t say they are striking it rich—that is hardly the case. He does think they just need to scale up production to make themselves more competitive with the industrial model, who really have cheap production down to a science. Read More >
Did you know according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, an estimated 70% of antibiotics in the U.S. are used on animals?
To promote growth?
A former research fellow, Jay Graham, MBA Ph.D., recently sat down to talk about the reality of antibiotic misuse on factory farms. This discussion is in part a follow-up to our March 5th release that found more evidence of another potential link between industrial food animal production and exposures to antibiotic resistant pathogens.
For additional resources and to read the studies he references, please visit our new Antibiotics Resource page.
