To those who read my diary yesterday and signed the Food Democracy Now petition
(go do it now if you haven't, then send it to your friends) - it's not
time to give up yet. There are more posts than just Secretary at the
USDA and maybe we can get someone into a lower position.
About
the danger of GMOs, it boils down to one phrase: "You can't put the
genie back in the bottle." We need to be DARN SURE that a GMO is safe
before we allow it. And think about this: the entire world takes the
risk, but only the biotech company reaps the profit. In other words,
they are in a position to be much less risk-averse than they ought to
be about their own products.
Why We "Need" GMOs
One
thing I realized while I was at BIO was that GMOs are created to fix a
lot of problems that don't require fixing - or to fix them in ways that
have cheaper, safer, existing fixes already out there.
>> Solving World Hunger
Gee,
wouldn't it be cool if we could genetically modify up some crops that
produce like crazy and resist pests and drought? Then we'd have so much
food we can solve world hunger!
The faulty logic here is that world hunger comes from a lack of food.
It doesn't. Not one bit. Want proof? We have enough food in America to
feed every single person (including babies) something like 3900
calories PER DAY. We have so much corn that we put it in our cars! We
have so many potatoes we make plastic out of them! And yet, we still
have hunger.
11.1% of Americans were food insecure in 2007
and 1/3 of that group were hungry. The problem wasn't growing too
little food. The same is true if you look at global numbers. Yet all of
the pretty marketing materials for the biotech industry refer to 800
million hungry people worldwide. We have enough food in the world -
we'd just rather throw it away than give it to people who can't pay for
it.
>>Reducing Pesticide Use
This
is also a noble goal, but it's one that can't be best accomplished by
GMOs. To an extent it can, but that would be like saying an SUV is a
great way of saving gas compared to a Hummer while ignoring the Prius
in the next parking space over. In Rodale Institute's farm systems
trials that they've done for over 20 years, they found the best yield
came from organics (compared to conventional & GMO crops) in most
years. So the food grown with zero pesticides was more successful than
the food grown with GMOs and pesticides.
Also
consider the amount of extra herbicide used on Roundup Ready GMO crops.
These are crops that are made to resist Monsanto's herbicide Roundup.
Roundup kills everything green, so normally you wouldn't be able to
douse your entire field with it. When you plant Roundup Ready seeds,
you CAN spray it all over the field and it kills everything except for
the GMOs. So while some GMOs allow for less pesticide use than normal in a conventional system, other
GMOs increase pesticide use. And even with the GMOs using decreased
amounts of pesticides, they still do not equal the decrease that is
accomplished by going organic.
>>Extra nutrients!
It's
a nice idea, right? But there's not much of a market for it. Farmers
who grow commodity crops get paid for yield, not nutrient content.
Monsanto and the other biotech companies know this. The farmers aren't
going to pay extra for GMO seeds that have the same yield but more
nutrition than cheaper, non-GMO seeds. Maybe the farmers are wonderful,
altruistic people, but they are already barely squeaking by
financially. Paying extra for seeds that net you no extra profit is
just dumb.
What about Golden Rice though?
It's the rice that looks golden because they modified it to produce
beta-carotene to help people in developing nations get their vitamin A.
Well, first off, they did it as a PR stunt... notice that since golden
rice came out there haven't been any other "extra nutritious" GMOs.
These crops take millions in R&D and they need to make money!
But
there's something else you should know about Golden Rice. Because you
might be saying to yourself "Well maybe it was a PR stunt but if it
helps malnourished people get vitamin A then it's still a good thing."
And that is correct... if that's what were going on. As it turns out, you would have to eat 12 times more rice than normal to get all of your vitamin A from it. In other words, it's a total sham.
Why I Oppose GMOs
The
biotech industry likes to say "science is on our side" and "anyone who
oppose GMOs is anti-science." That could not be further from the truth
in my own case. Yes, maybe there are people out there who are spooked
by the idea of "eating DNA" even though every single plant and animal
cell you ever eat has DNA in it. And sure, that's a ridiculous fear.
But that's not my complaint against GMOs.
Our
plants and animals grow and live in a ridiculously complex ecosystem.
Think of all of the tiny little microbes in the soil that we probably
haven't even discovered yet. They are all there, doing their jobs. Now
that we do have pretty good microbiologists, we know some of what they
do, too. They protect plants from disease and pests and they bring
nutrients to plants. And sure, there are some bad ones out there too
that prey on our crops or our livestock, but in a healthy ecosystem
those harmful ones are in check.
The food
web starts with these tiny microbes, and with all of the worms and bugs
hanging out in the soil or in the air. They eat each other, sometimes
they live harmoniously with one another, but they are all there.
Usually we pay no attention to them. When there's biodiversity among
them, the system stays pretty well in balance. No one species' population can grow unchecked, nor will any one species all die off instantaneously.
These
microbes and other tiny critters are also responsible for making sure
the soil can absorb and hold water, and for cycling nutrients from
decaying organisms into the soil. Plants are pretty clever at
manipulating the microbes, believe it or not, because they actually get
the soil microbes to bring them the nutrients they need. In other words, a healthy, diverse soil ecosystem means more nutritious food.
Because
of the healthy soil, plants can survive better in heat, cold, drought,
and floods. And with all of the populations keeping the other ones in
check, there's less chance for a huge pest outbreak. But that is in an
organic system only. Add pesticides or commercial fertilizer
and you throw that ecosystem out of balance. Because the ecosystem is
so complex, human meddling almost always has unforeseen consequences.
And GMOs are most definitely considered human meddling.
Each
new gene or adaptation had unforeseen consequences as well. Sometimes
they were probably major consequences. But the changes occurred over
millions of years and over time the ecosystem reached some sort of
equilibrium. Nature ran its own R&D very, very slowly, and it
worked out all the kinks. Now we have its latest and most up
to date models of each species, and we can be sure we'll continue to
get new upgrades each time a gene mutates or an animal or plant mates
and then the organisms with the best DNA have advantages over less
successful organisms and perpetuate their genes to the next generation.
So
what about GMOs? Well, we tinker with a gene or two, and then we put it
out in nature for a test run. Over time, nature will work it out.
Nature always does. But it does it on nature's schedule... the
resulting chaos in the ecosystem could even take thousands of years to
be resolved. Nature and humans work on very different timelines. In
other words, we can really screw ourselves with GMOs in the short run,
even if nature successfully incorporates our GMOs into the ecosystem in
the long run.
The difference between GMOs
and pesticides is that GMOs are forever. Some pesticides stay in the
environment for a long time. Others can break down in the environment
rather quickly. But what's a long time for a pesticide? A century?
That's the blink of an eye in the evolutionary process. The amount of
risk involved in putting GMOs into the environment WILL NEVER equal the
benefit, particularly considering the non-risky options we have at our
fingertips for accomplishing the same goals.
Another
point I realized when I was at the BIO conference was that GMOs are
generally designed to do one thing. For example, a drought-resistant
seed is made to resist drought... ONLY. So that does not mean that that
particular variety is the most resistant to any one pest or disease, or
is the most high-yielding.
When you plant
the seed designed for drought resistance (and pay a premium for it)
you're essentially making a bet that you'll have a drought that year.
Maybe you do, and you grow more than your neighbor who bought the
high-yielding non-drought resistant hybrid seeds. Or maybe you get a
decent amount of rain and your neighbor's high yielding seeds grew much
more than your average yielding drought-resistant ones.
When
you focus on the soil instead of manipulating the genes for one trait,
you can maximize EVERYTHING at once. You can go for most nutrients,
drought resistance, heat resistance, flood resistance, cold resistance,
pest resistance, etc. Living soil will provide ALL of those things to
the plant. After all, nature's been perfecting its system for millions
of years. So remind me again, why are we taking a huge risk to maximize
ONE trait when we can take NO risk and get everything we want instead?
Also,
consider the role of biodiversity within each species of plant or
animal. Blogger Land of Enchantment gives a great example with her own
orchard. She plants many different varieties of each fruit tree. She
lives in an area that could get a late frost and she figures that no
matter when the last frost comes during the spring, there will be at
least one of her trees that can still produce fruit. If she had an
entire orchard of identical trees, then one late frost could mean no
fruit at all that year.
The biotech
company's response to questions about the need for biodiversity is
something like "Well, we'll buy up and patent all of the seeds and then
if we ever need one, we'll have it hanging around in a vault
somewhere." Thanks but no thanks. We need biodiversity NOW. Land of
Enchantment's orchard would get very little help from diverse seeds
that were sitting in a Monsanto seed vault while Monsanto only sells
one type of seed on the market.
Biodiversity
and GMOs do not mix and there is a simple reason why. When you're a
company maximizing your profit, you want bang for your buck. Each GMO
product requires years of R&D and millions of dollars. You want to
develop seeds that you can sell to as wide a market as possible. You
don't want to develop 4000 varieties of GMO corn. You want one. Maybe
two. You want a few really, really successful varieties that you can
sell to every single corn farmer on the planet. That's gonna get you
the most profit.
She Swallowed the Spider to Catch the Fly
Remember
the old lady who swallowed a fly? Then she kept swallowing
progressively more absurd things in order to mitigate the problem
caused by swallowing the fly. Each successive "solution" was worse than
each successive problem. THAT is what biotech ultimately is, in
practice - even if in theory it could be some noble scientific thing.
First
we swallowed the fly by adopting monoculture crops and pesticides and
by assuming we could fertilize them with N,P, and K alone (Nitrogen,
Phosphorus, and Potassium). We throw the ecosystem out of balance,
creating MORE fluctuation in populations of each individual species,
and leave our crops more open to pest problems. Then we pour on the
fertilizer and let half of it leach out of the soil into the waterways,
creating dead zones in our oceans.
GMOs are
just swallowing the spider to catch the fly. Sure, we might use less
pesticide here and there, or we might get a higher yield or less loss
to pests one year. But we aren't solving the overall problem. We're
just further entrenching it while making new problems.
So THAT is why I oppose GMOs. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it, Tom Vilsack!
By OrangeClouds115, on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 08:01:28 AM PST
Stuart Bradford
The basic formula for gaining and losing weight is well known: a pound of fat equals 3,500 calories.
That simple equation has fueled the widely accepted notion that
weight loss does not require daunting lifestyle changes but “small
changes that add up,” as the first lady, Michelle Obama, put it last
month in announcing a national plan to counter childhood obesity.
In this view, cutting out or burning just 100 extra calories a day —
by replacing soda with water, say, or walking to school — can lead to
significant weight loss over time: a pound every 35 days, or more than
10 pounds a year.
While it’s certainly a hopeful message, it’s also misleading.
Numerous scientific studies show that small caloric changes have almost
no long-term effect on weight. When we skip a cookie or exercise a
little more, the body’s biological and behavioral adaptations kick in,
significantly reducing the caloric benefits of our effort.
But can small changes in diet and exercise at least keep children
from gaining weight? While some obesity experts think so, mathematical
models suggest otherwise.
Saul Loeb/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images The
first lady, Michelle Obama, spoke last month at the White House about
her “Let’s Move” initiative, which aims to change the way children eat
and play.
As a recent commentary in The Journal of the American Medical
Association noted, the “small changes” theory fails to take the body’s
adaptive mechanisms into account. The rise in children’s obesity over
the past few decades can’t be explained by an extra 100-calorie soda
each day, or fewer physical education classes. Skipping a cookie or
walking to school would barely make a dent in a calorie imbalance that
goes “far beyond the ability of most individuals to address on a
personal level,” the authors wrote — on the order of walking 5 to 10
miles a day for 10 years.
This doesn’t mean small improvements are futile — far from it. But
people need to take a realistic view of what they can accomplish.
“As clinicians, we celebrate small changes because they often lead
to big changes,” said Dr. David Ludwig, director of the Optimal Weight
for Life program at Children’s Hospital Boston and a co-author of the
JAMA commentary. “An obese adolescent who cuts back TV viewing from six
to five hours each day may then go on to decrease viewing much more.
However, it would be entirely unrealistic to think that these changes
alone would produce substantial weight loss.”
Why wouldn’t they? The answer lies in biology. A person’s weight
remains stable as long as the number of calories consumed doesn’t
exceed the amount of calories the body spends, both on exercise and to
maintain basic body functions. As the balance between calories going in
and calories going out changes, we gain or lose weight.
But bodies don’t gain or lose weight indefinitely. Eventually, a
cascade of biological changes kicks in to help the body maintain a new
weight. As the JAMA article explains, a person who eats an extra cookie
a day will gain some weight, but over time, an increasing proportion of
the cookie’s calories also goes to taking care of the extra body
weight. Eventually, the body adjusts and stops gaining weight, even if
the person continues to eat the cookie.
Similar factors come into play when we skip the extra cookie. We may
lose a little weight at first, but soon the body adjusts to the new
weight and requires fewer calories.
Regrettably, however, the body is more resistant to weight loss than
weight gain. Hormones and brain chemicals that regulate your
unconscious drive to eat and how your body responds to exercise can
make it even more difficult to lose the weight. You may skip the cookie
but unknowingly compensate by eating a bagel later on or an extra
serving of pasta at dinner.
“There is a much bigger picture than parsing out the cookie a day or
the Coke a day,” said Dr. Jeffrey M. Friedman, head of Rockefeller
University’s molecular genetics lab, which first identified leptin, a
hormonal signal made by the body’s fat cells that regulates food intake
and energy expenditure. “If you ask anyone on the street, ‘Why is
someone obese?,’ they’ll say, ‘They eat too much.’ ”
“That is undoubtedly true,” he continued, “but the deeper question
is why do they eat too much? It’s clear now that there are many
important drivers to eat and that it is not purely a conscious or
higher cognitive decision.”
This is not to say that the push for small daily changes in eating
and exercise is misguided. James O. Hill, director of the Center for
Human Nutrition at the University of Colorado Denver, says that while
weight loss requires significant lifestyle changes, taking away extra
calories through small steps can help slow and prevent weight gain.
In a study of 200 families, half were asked to replace 100 calories
of sugar with a noncaloric sweetener and walk an extra 2,000 steps a
day. The other families were asked to use pedometers to record their
exercise but were not asked to make diet changes.
During the six-month study, both groups of children showed small but
statistically significant drops in body mass index; the group that also
cut 100 calories had more children who maintained or reduced body mass
and fewer children who gained excess weight.
The study, published in 2007 in Pediatrics, didn’t look at long-term
benefits. But Dr. Hill says it suggests that small changes can keep
overweight kids from gaining even more excess weight.
“Once you’re trying for weight loss, you’re out of the small-change
realm,” he said. “But the small-steps approach can stop weight gain.”
While small steps are unlikely to solve the nation’s obesity crisis,
doctors say losing a little weight, eating more heart-healthy foods and
increasing exercise can make a meaningful difference in overall health
and risks for heart disease and diabetes.
“I’m not saying throw up your hands and forget about it,” Dr.
Friedman said. “Instead of focusing on weight or appearance, focus on
people’s health. There are things people can do to improve their health
significantly that don’t require normalizing your weight.”
Dr. Ludwig still encourages individuals to make small changes, like
watching less television or eating a few extra vegetables, because
those shifts can be a prelude to even bigger lifestyle changes that may
ultimately lead to weight loss. But he and others say that reversing
obesity will require larger shifts — like regulating food advertising
to children and eliminating government subsidies that make junk food
cheap and profitable.
“We need to know what we’re up against in terms of the basic
biological challenges, and then design a campaign that will truly
address the problem in its full magnitude,” Dr. Ludwig said. “If we
just expect that inner-city child to exercise self-control and walk a
little bit more, then I think we’re in for a big disappointment.”