This week, I'm switching gears a little. Instead of trying to scare you with facts about animal feces or antibiotic resistance, I'm just going to give you a shopping suggestion. To me, it seems like modern advancement has led to this growing need for instant gratification. Instant knowledge, instant messaging, "instant food." Let's face it, it's very tempting to pop in a frozen dinner at the end of the day rather than cook some vegetables you grew in your own garden. Now I'm not saying you HAVE to grow your own foods to live without relying on factory farmed, processed foods. I'm just saying, there is another way.
If you live in or around Morgantown, WV and you're a fan of organics or local produce, you should check out Mountain People's Co-op. I recently started shopping there myself, and I have to say, the experience is profoundly different from shopping at any grocery store you've been to. I didn't even realize just how many different foods there are! Until recently, I had never heard of the mung bean. As it turns out, you can make fettuchini out of them; it's gluten-free, USDA organic, and it's awesome. In fact, without even realizing it I purchased ONLY organic products the first time I shopped at the co-op. They have a wide selection of grains in bulk jars, so you can scoop out how much you want for a recipe that evening or a week's supply, depending on your needs. The dairy boasts its freshness, labeling each egg carton with the "laid on" rather than the "use by" date. In the frozen section, instead of finding stacks of Digiorno pizza and hot pockets filled with "cheese product" and "spam," you find tofu, some frozen whole-grain breads, and a variety of organic meat from local farmers (organic isn't just for vegetarians anymore). The store may be small, but they fit a selection unparalleled in our area into those little walls. If you're interested in trying a different way to eat, you need to check it out for yourself, and maybe even visit their blog. They have some really unique recipes with lots of ingredients no one has ever heard of, so it's perfect for the adventurous chef. Try it! I promise, food does not have to be processed the be delicious.
2.17.2011
GMO's: Will the Ends Justify the Means?
Bloggers, this is an issue I can't take lightly. On one side of the debate, I have read about the science behind genetic modification and have come to understand the effects of that type of technology on biodiversity (the great force behind evolution in an ecosystem) and I am afraid for the long term effects it could have on the people who live off this food. In the short term, there are 925 million people starving right now, and genetic modification can dramatically increase crop yields in developing countries. Maybe down the road this technology will have adverse effects on the environment; maybe genetically modified food does increase your risk of cancer over many years (the studies so far are inconclusive). That still means in some areas genetically modified organisms (GMOs) can make the difference between increasing your risk of developing cancer someday or increasing your risk of starving to death. I feel like it's important to consider that in this argument. That said, there still needs to be more testing and regulation on biotechnology, because the problems that scientists forsee for the future of industrial agriculture must be considered as well.
Since 1992, GMOs have been listed by the FDA under the category "GRAS," Generally Recognized As Safe. GRAS substances require no testing of any kind before being sold, so the government's official stance towards patenting and selling biotech foods became a policy of no regulation, and since they are considered safe, you don't need to label genetically modified food or ingredients either. Most GRAS foods become so after exhaustive experimentation, including replication, that proves their safety; GMOs managed to make the cut after testing that proved GMOs need more testing:
“The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”
-FDA Internal memo, Jan. 8th 1992
Somewhere along the line, some dissenting voices got supressed, Michael Taylor, a representative from the biotechnology giant Monsanto got appointed Deputy Commissioner for the FDA, and GMOs became GRAS on May 26, 1992. Now they grow across 100,000,000 acres of US farmland.
What were the scientists worried about? In the area of human health, allergic reaction, nutritional decline, incidence of new diseases, and my personal favorite, from Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Science: "The medical community is terrified about the loss of antibiotics...on a worldwide basis." When biotechnology companies go about genetically modifying plants, their main goal is to insert a gene that will produce a desired effect on the profitability of a crop, like round up ready seeds, created to survive being sprayed with the popular herbicide round up, or BT crops, engineered to produce their own insecticide. But, they also insert an antibiotic marker gene into the sequence, so they can test a sample of bacteria engineered to introduce these genes into a plant with that antibiotic, to test that the sequence is being transcribed and produced in the cells. So far, the tests on GMOs and antibiotic resistance have been inconclusive-but of course, they no longer require that anyway. However, we do know that organisms like to reproduce. When they do that, their genes combine in unpredictable ways-just take a look at a picture of you and your parents if you want proof of that. The possibility for variation and propagation of these engineered mutations are a major concern the scientific community has about GMOs.
Environmentally, these new gene sequences are probably the number one threat to plant biodiversity today. The cost of growing GMOs is lower for the farmer, because they can spray fewer pesticides (until the weeds develop a resistance to the sprays) and the government provides subsidies to people who farm certain crops. Namely, corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola-the most commonly genetically modified crops. So, people who want to make money, only grow what they can profit off, but it doesn't stop there. Because of cross-pollination, there have been many cases documented where farmers unknowingly end up growing GM crops like their neighbors. I call them "cases," because there actually are court cases, hundreds of them, filed by Monsanto for patent infringement, but that's a story for another day. Anyway, what we get is the government paying farmers to flood the ecosystem with new, unregulated, unpredictable genes. A study conducted by Professor Ignacio H. Chapela from the University of California, Berkeley found GM gene sequences present in corn being grown all the way in Oaxaco, Mexico. Furthermore, this corn came from traditional land races, areas of farmland set aside in mexico to grow thousands of varieties of corn native to Mexico. These farmers were not using genetically modified seeds. Whatever crops were contaminated was an unintentional, unavoidable effect of plants natural tendency to reproduce, sometimes across great distances.
Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have cultivated many thousands of species. In the last hundred years, 90% of food cultivated by farmers has come from 15 plants and 8 animals. That's a big change, in a very short period of time. Instead of growing a diverse selection of crops, farmers widely grow in monocultures now-large fields dedicated to one variety of crop. That's now the standard for raising GMOs, and all other factory farmed produce. These monocultures are ideal for promoting homogeneity in a species, which is what companies want to sell, but not what nature can support. Genetic uniformity increases the rate of predation on crops by insects and diseases. Remember the Irish potato famine? All those potatoes were the same variety, causing them all to be susceptible to the same disease, causing thousands of people to die. So, it is possible, genetically modified foods could one day be the cause world hunger, instead of the cure. It's food for thought. It's why we need more tests. It's why genetically modified foods should be labeled, so at least we can have a choice in supporting them.
Since 1992, GMOs have been listed by the FDA under the category "GRAS," Generally Recognized As Safe. GRAS substances require no testing of any kind before being sold, so the government's official stance towards patenting and selling biotech foods became a policy of no regulation, and since they are considered safe, you don't need to label genetically modified food or ingredients either. Most GRAS foods become so after exhaustive experimentation, including replication, that proves their safety; GMOs managed to make the cut after testing that proved GMOs need more testing:
“The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”
-FDA Internal memo, Jan. 8th 1992
Somewhere along the line, some dissenting voices got supressed, Michael Taylor, a representative from the biotechnology giant Monsanto got appointed Deputy Commissioner for the FDA, and GMOs became GRAS on May 26, 1992. Now they grow across 100,000,000 acres of US farmland.
What were the scientists worried about? In the area of human health, allergic reaction, nutritional decline, incidence of new diseases, and my personal favorite, from Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board on Agriculture at the National Academy of Science: "The medical community is terrified about the loss of antibiotics...on a worldwide basis." When biotechnology companies go about genetically modifying plants, their main goal is to insert a gene that will produce a desired effect on the profitability of a crop, like round up ready seeds, created to survive being sprayed with the popular herbicide round up, or BT crops, engineered to produce their own insecticide. But, they also insert an antibiotic marker gene into the sequence, so they can test a sample of bacteria engineered to introduce these genes into a plant with that antibiotic, to test that the sequence is being transcribed and produced in the cells. So far, the tests on GMOs and antibiotic resistance have been inconclusive-but of course, they no longer require that anyway. However, we do know that organisms like to reproduce. When they do that, their genes combine in unpredictable ways-just take a look at a picture of you and your parents if you want proof of that. The possibility for variation and propagation of these engineered mutations are a major concern the scientific community has about GMOs.
Environmentally, these new gene sequences are probably the number one threat to plant biodiversity today. The cost of growing GMOs is lower for the farmer, because they can spray fewer pesticides (until the weeds develop a resistance to the sprays) and the government provides subsidies to people who farm certain crops. Namely, corn, soybeans, cotton, and canola-the most commonly genetically modified crops. So, people who want to make money, only grow what they can profit off, but it doesn't stop there. Because of cross-pollination, there have been many cases documented where farmers unknowingly end up growing GM crops like their neighbors. I call them "cases," because there actually are court cases, hundreds of them, filed by Monsanto for patent infringement, but that's a story for another day. Anyway, what we get is the government paying farmers to flood the ecosystem with new, unregulated, unpredictable genes. A study conducted by Professor Ignacio H. Chapela from the University of California, Berkeley found GM gene sequences present in corn being grown all the way in Oaxaco, Mexico. Furthermore, this corn came from traditional land races, areas of farmland set aside in mexico to grow thousands of varieties of corn native to Mexico. These farmers were not using genetically modified seeds. Whatever crops were contaminated was an unintentional, unavoidable effect of plants natural tendency to reproduce, sometimes across great distances.
Since the dawn of agriculture, humans have cultivated many thousands of species. In the last hundred years, 90% of food cultivated by farmers has come from 15 plants and 8 animals. That's a big change, in a very short period of time. Instead of growing a diverse selection of crops, farmers widely grow in monocultures now-large fields dedicated to one variety of crop. That's now the standard for raising GMOs, and all other factory farmed produce. These monocultures are ideal for promoting homogeneity in a species, which is what companies want to sell, but not what nature can support. Genetic uniformity increases the rate of predation on crops by insects and diseases. Remember the Irish potato famine? All those potatoes were the same variety, causing them all to be susceptible to the same disease, causing thousands of people to die. So, it is possible, genetically modified foods could one day be the cause world hunger, instead of the cure. It's food for thought. It's why we need more tests. It's why genetically modified foods should be labeled, so at least we can have a choice in supporting them.
2.07.2011
"The Business of America is Business"
It has come to my attention I may have jumped into the the business of factory farming without first properly explaining about the business itself. So today I'm going to back track. Let's start with a bit of a history lesson.
Ironically, factory farming evolved a lot like an animal, and like biological evolution, it shares a common ancestry with other types of industrialized labor. Everyone has heard of Henry Ford's invention of the assembly line, but what you may not have heard is that he got his great idea from the first industrial processing plants that popped up in the early 1800s. That's right, animals were being treated like machines before machines were being treated like machines. Where once we had highly trained butchers handling meat from slaughter to store, suddenly we had lines of men, each with one job involved in the slaughter of an animal, and they had some great titles. To name a few: kill men, sticker-bleeders, tail-rippers, leggers, butters, flankers, head-skinners, head-chislers, gutters, and back splitters. I'd explain their duties further, but I feel like they are mostly the kind of thing you can infer from the name. So, the job of the one became the job of the many, which is nice for unemployment rates, but the farming industry has a strange way of expanding the scope of the work and narrowing it at the same time. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Now, we've got these industrial assembly lines in place, and while all this is going on great advancements are being made in transportation (i.e. railroads and improved roadway systems) and the industrial revolution itself is calling for an increase in efficiency in all business in order to survive. And so, the stage is set for factory farming to take hold, all it needed was someone to take the lead. That role would end up going to the birds. Well, the chickens. In the 30s, or as some lovingly refer to it "The Great Depression", the number of chickens being raised for slaughter each year skyrocketed, due to the discovery that they could be housed inside by the thousands. Of course, that meant a farmer needed some new tricks to keep all those birds alive, and some great innovators came along to tackle the problem. You might recognize their names-Mr. Arthur Perdue and Mr. John Tyson, some of the first (and to this day) major players in industrial agriculture. Their operations were some of the first to introduce hybrid corn to chicken feed, which decreased costs. Then came a practice called debeaking (another one of those terms that is exactly what it sounds like) to make it harder for chickens to attack each other living in such close quarters. And so chickens became the first factory farmed animals in the world. Shortly thereafter was a great big flood of changes to the lifestyle chickens were used to: sulfa drugs and antibiotics started showing up in their food, to help them grow big and "healthy."
And boy, did they grow big. In 70 years time (1935-1995) the weight of chickens increased by 65%, which meant they could be slaughtered much sooner, and since the drugs made them so nice and fat, the amount they were fed dropped 57%. You know America, we're all about reducing costs and increasing efficiency. But in this case, that efficiency means we are allowing ourselves to eat malnourished animals in order to nourish ourselves. Does that sound counter intuitive to anyone else?
Scariest part-this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even gotten to the modern players in the farming game, and I have yet to even touch on factory farming's influence on produce. We'll start next week with GMOs-genetically modified organisms. Stay tuned.
Ironically, factory farming evolved a lot like an animal, and like biological evolution, it shares a common ancestry with other types of industrialized labor. Everyone has heard of Henry Ford's invention of the assembly line, but what you may not have heard is that he got his great idea from the first industrial processing plants that popped up in the early 1800s. That's right, animals were being treated like machines before machines were being treated like machines. Where once we had highly trained butchers handling meat from slaughter to store, suddenly we had lines of men, each with one job involved in the slaughter of an animal, and they had some great titles. To name a few: kill men, sticker-bleeders, tail-rippers, leggers, butters, flankers, head-skinners, head-chislers, gutters, and back splitters. I'd explain their duties further, but I feel like they are mostly the kind of thing you can infer from the name. So, the job of the one became the job of the many, which is nice for unemployment rates, but the farming industry has a strange way of expanding the scope of the work and narrowing it at the same time. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
Now, we've got these industrial assembly lines in place, and while all this is going on great advancements are being made in transportation (i.e. railroads and improved roadway systems) and the industrial revolution itself is calling for an increase in efficiency in all business in order to survive. And so, the stage is set for factory farming to take hold, all it needed was someone to take the lead. That role would end up going to the birds. Well, the chickens. In the 30s, or as some lovingly refer to it "The Great Depression", the number of chickens being raised for slaughter each year skyrocketed, due to the discovery that they could be housed inside by the thousands. Of course, that meant a farmer needed some new tricks to keep all those birds alive, and some great innovators came along to tackle the problem. You might recognize their names-Mr. Arthur Perdue and Mr. John Tyson, some of the first (and to this day) major players in industrial agriculture. Their operations were some of the first to introduce hybrid corn to chicken feed, which decreased costs. Then came a practice called debeaking (another one of those terms that is exactly what it sounds like) to make it harder for chickens to attack each other living in such close quarters. And so chickens became the first factory farmed animals in the world. Shortly thereafter was a great big flood of changes to the lifestyle chickens were used to: sulfa drugs and antibiotics started showing up in their food, to help them grow big and "healthy."
And boy, did they grow big. In 70 years time (1935-1995) the weight of chickens increased by 65%, which meant they could be slaughtered much sooner, and since the drugs made them so nice and fat, the amount they were fed dropped 57%. You know America, we're all about reducing costs and increasing efficiency. But in this case, that efficiency means we are allowing ourselves to eat malnourished animals in order to nourish ourselves. Does that sound counter intuitive to anyone else?
Scariest part-this is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't even gotten to the modern players in the farming game, and I have yet to even touch on factory farming's influence on produce. We'll start next week with GMOs-genetically modified organisms. Stay tuned.
2.01.2011
Food for our food
I spent a lot of time thinking this week about where to take you readers next on the topic of FACTORY FARMING, and I realized I was a bit ambiguous on several points in my first post. For starters, what does an "unnatural diet" really mean? I could see one making an argument for the modern human diet as unnatural (all those fried foods!). So, what makes the diet we feed animals like our cows any worse? Well, the same way eating french fries all day everyday might be bad for YOUR digestive system, so is a diet of corn for a cow, yet that is the preferred feed for cows found on CAFOs.
Cows are what we might call picky eaters, or "specialists." That means they evolved eating a very particular diet to support their particular needs. Cow stomachs are divided into several chambers, most important in digestion of grass being the rumen. This highly specialized structure allows a cow to extract complete proteins from grass in a way humans cannot, which may be why it is easy for big companies trying to feed thousands of cows as cheaply as possible to forget that corn is not going to cut it. But, you cannot fatten thousands of cows in a small area off a few fields. Instead, the animals are fed grains to save money and increase their speed to slaughter.
Unfortunately, a cow's stomach is not built to withstand the high starch diet they are receiving. Because these foods are so high in carbohydrates these animals may grow big and fat nice and quick (with the help of hormones), but it is harmful to their health. The one part of the complicated bovine digestive tract particularly affected by eating so many grains is the rumen. This diet causes overproduction of stomach acids, and this malfunction, not to mention malnutrition, can lead to serious illness in a farmer's cattle-or should I say, our dinner. On top of the insufficient diet, the close quarters factory farmed animals must inhabit can easily allow for the spread of disease between cattle, just like it does for humans. Except, with humans, typically one thinks of a cold spreading easily in a small apartment. For cows, this is their small apartment:
So how does a modern day farmer stop their whole herd from getting sick and dying on them before they can make it to the market? Simple-if you can be almost certain they are going to get sick, then all you have to do is find the right medicine. That's why corn-fed cows are also fed antibiotics with every meal, like the aptly named Rumensin. It sounds like a fine solution to the spread of disease-in the short term. However, bacteria has a way of getting around these chemicals when they are exposed to them over time, mutating to withstand the advances modern science has made in combating disease. The use of antibiotics in cow-feed has even shown a possible link to the rise and propagation of antibiotic resistant MRSA. Antibiotic resistance is a very real issue for the medical community, and it is unfathomable to think the problem could partially stem from the food that is supposed to make us healthy. And yet, here we are.
Before I end for the day's blog, I'd like to leave you with a few facts I found particularly interesting that relate to factory farmed feeding.
1) "It's a fact that cattle evolved to eat grass."
-Neil Hamilton, director of Agricultural Law Center, Drake University
Everyone still with me? Okay, moving on.
2) E. coli is a naturally ocurring bacteria present in the digestive tract of both humans and cows, and many other organisms, for that matter, BUT, certain strains of e. coli are poisonous to humans and can cause very serious illness and death. One of these strains, E. coli O157:H7, can be found in the stomachs of cattle.
3) E. coli O157:H7 is considered especially dangerous because it can survive at an extremely acidic level, generally higher than that of human stomach acid.
4) Corn-fed cows, as opposed to grazed cows, exhibit high colonic pH and a larger amount of E. coli O157:H7 than do cattle fed a diet of alfalfa hay.
A summary of these findings can be found in the 2000 Nebraska Beef Report, the results of which suggests if you give cows a steady diet of grains, which I repeat, they just cannot digest correctly, they get a special kind of tummy-ache; the kind of tummy-ache in which they breed extra e. coli that is harmful to humans. You can draw your own conclusions on how this might possibly be related to any or all recent recalls on beef due to e. coli contamination. Or you can read the article, which clearly states "The organism [E. coli O157:H7] is thought to enter the food chain through fecal contamination of the hide during slaughter."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)