Tell the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Don’t approve GMO apples | CREDO Action
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
One Genetically Engineered Apple Spoils the Bunch | The Dr. Oz Show
One Genetically Engineered Apple Spoils the Bunch | The Dr. Oz Show
As of right now, only a few items in the produce aisle are genetically engineered (GE) – some squash, papayas and sweet corn. But pretty soon, we could be seeing GE apples in grocery stores. Since 2003, one company has been testing its GE apples in field trials in New York and Washington – the biggest apple-producing states in the country. And now these apples, engineered not to brown when bruised or sliced, are up for regulatory review by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Bacterial and viral DNA are inserted into these GE fruits called “Arctic” apples. They would be available in Golden Delicious and Granny Smith varieties. They are destined for the fresh-cut apple slice processing and food service businesses, with some of the low-grade Arctic apples going into juice. According to the company’s petition, they “see Arctic apples replacing regular apples at the retail level.” The company also expects to see a $120 million return on Arctic apple varieties within the first 10 years of commercialization.
But this new GE apple isn’t even supported by trade organizations such as the US Apple Association or the Northwest Horticulture Council. Both of these organizations sent USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack a letter in March 2011 urging him not to allow the GE apple in the United States due to the potential marketing harm that would occur to apple growers and marketers. The British Columbia Fruit Growers Association is also concerned about the effects that these GE apples will have on the traditional apple market and on consumer confidence in apples at the grocery store. Even the top sliced apple company is concerned about the food safety ramifications of these Arctic apples that will appear to be fresher than they really are.
Some of the concerns raised by these apples include: Nearby organic or traditional apple orchards may be contaminated with pollen from GE apples. The quality of the apples may be masked by its non-browning appearance and mislead consumers into thinking they are fresher than they really are. Commingling of GE apples at the processing level could lead to contamination of non-GE fruit slices or juice Without a label, consumers may unwittingly purchase and consume Arctic apples.
Are all of the risks really worth it for an apple that resists a minor aesthetic flaw? Millions of research dollars have been put into this product so that fast food and processing companies can let sliced apples sit around in plastic bags for longer.
Although the company claims they will label their apples with an Arctic apple sticker and indication of its “non-browning trait benefit,” there is no requirement for them to do so, and since there is no required labeling of GE products, they will not be responsible for telling the public that their product is genetically engineered.
As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. And this could be that apple. Which is why we’re asking the USDA not to approve the GE Arctic apple for commercialization in the United States. Here’s our petition if you’d like to join us.
Added to Nutrition, Food Safety on Fri 08/03/2012
As of right now, only a few items in the produce aisle are genetically engineered (GE) – some squash, papayas and sweet corn. But pretty soon, we could be seeing GE apples in grocery stores. Since 2003, one company has been testing its GE apples in field trials in New York and Washington – the biggest apple-producing states in the country. And now these apples, engineered not to brown when bruised or sliced, are up for regulatory review by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Bacterial and viral DNA are inserted into these GE fruits called “Arctic” apples. They would be available in Golden Delicious and Granny Smith varieties. They are destined for the fresh-cut apple slice processing and food service businesses, with some of the low-grade Arctic apples going into juice. According to the company’s petition, they “see Arctic apples replacing regular apples at the retail level.” The company also expects to see a $120 million return on Arctic apple varieties within the first 10 years of commercialization.
But this new GE apple isn’t even supported by trade organizations such as the US Apple Association or the Northwest Horticulture Council. Both of these organizations sent USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack a letter in March 2011 urging him not to allow the GE apple in the United States due to the potential marketing harm that would occur to apple growers and marketers. The British Columbia Fruit Growers Association is also concerned about the effects that these GE apples will have on the traditional apple market and on consumer confidence in apples at the grocery store. Even the top sliced apple company is concerned about the food safety ramifications of these Arctic apples that will appear to be fresher than they really are.
Some of the concerns raised by these apples include: Nearby organic or traditional apple orchards may be contaminated with pollen from GE apples. The quality of the apples may be masked by its non-browning appearance and mislead consumers into thinking they are fresher than they really are. Commingling of GE apples at the processing level could lead to contamination of non-GE fruit slices or juice Without a label, consumers may unwittingly purchase and consume Arctic apples.
Are all of the risks really worth it for an apple that resists a minor aesthetic flaw? Millions of research dollars have been put into this product so that fast food and processing companies can let sliced apples sit around in plastic bags for longer.
Although the company claims they will label their apples with an Arctic apple sticker and indication of its “non-browning trait benefit,” there is no requirement for them to do so, and since there is no required labeling of GE products, they will not be responsible for telling the public that their product is genetically engineered.
As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch. And this could be that apple. Which is why we’re asking the USDA not to approve the GE Arctic apple for commercialization in the United States. Here’s our petition if you’d like to join us.
Added to Nutrition, Food Safety on Fri 08/03/2012
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Monsanto’s Patents on Life
For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court began hearing arguments in a seed patent infringement case that pits a small farmer from Indiana, 75-year old Vernon Hugh Bowman, against biotech goliath Monsanto. Reporters from the New York Times to the Sacramento Bee dissected the legal arguments. They speculated on the odds. They opined on the impact a Monsanto loss might have, not only on genetically modified crops, but on medical research and software.
What most of them didn’t report on is the absurdity – and the danger – of allowing companies to patent living organisms in the first place, and then use those patents to attempt to monopolize world seed and food production.
The case boils down to this. Monsanto sells its patented genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" soybean seeds to farmers under a contract that prohibits the farmers from saving the next-generation seeds and replanting them. Farmers like Mr. Bowman who buy Monsanto’s GE seeds are required to buy new seeds every year. For years, Mr. Bowman played by Monsanto’s rules. Then in 2007, he bought an unmarked mix of soybeans from a grain elevator and planted them. Some of the soybeans turned out to have been grown from Monsanto’s patented Roundup Ready soybean seeds. Monsanto sued Mr. Bowman, won, and the court ordered the farmer to pay the company $84,000. Mr. Bowman appealed, arguing that he unknowingly bought soybeans grown from Monsanto’s seeds, not the seeds themselves, and that therefore the law of "patent exhaustion" applies.
The press and public have fixated on the sticky legal details of the case, and the classic David vs. Goliath nature of the fight. But win or lose, Mr. Bowman’s predicament is part of a much bigger problem.
The real issue is this: Why have we surrendered control over something so basic to human survival as seeds? Why have we bought into the biotech industry’s program, which pushes a few monoculture commodity crops, when history and science have proven that seed biodiversity is essential for growing crops capable of surviving severe climate conditions, such as drought and floods?
Monsanto’s Patents on Life
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Andy Bellatti: What You Don't Know About Processed Food
You've heard of pink slime. You know trans fats arecardiovascular atrocities. You're well aware that store-bought orange juice is essentially a scam. But, no matter how great of a processed-food sleuth you are, chances are you've never set food inside a processing plant to see how many of these products are actually made.
Writer Melanie Warner, whose new behind-the-scenes-look-at-the-world-of-processed-foods book,Pandora's Lunchbox, is out this week, spent the past year and a half doing exactly that. In her quest to explore the murky and convoluted world of soybean oil, milk protein concentrates (a key ingredient in processed cheese), and petroleum-based artificial dyes, she spoke to food scientists, uncovered disturbing regulatory loopholes in food law, and learned just how little we know about many of the food products on supermarket shelves.
After reading Pandora's Lunchbox, I sent Melanie some burning questions via email. Here is what she had to say:
The term "processed food" is ubiquitous these days. The food industry has attempted to co-opt it by claiming canned beans, baby carrots, and frozen vegetables are "processed foods." Can you help explain why a Pop-Tart is years away from a "processed food" like hummus?
Andy Bellatti: What You Don't Know About Processed Food
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Food Dialogues
Pesticides, Fertilizer & Herbicides
USFRA’s Point of View
USFRA's View on Pesticides, Fertilizers & Herbicides
Insects, weeds and plant diseases are serious threats that can devastate crops. Throughout history, farmers have found ways to manage these threats or see their livelihood – and a lot of food – destroyed.
Each year farmers face tough management decisions, especially when it comes to the best route to raise a good crop while managing environmental impact and costs. They face this reality from the time the seed goes into the soil through harvest. USFRA supports farmers who employ many different methods for crop protection – from conventional to organic – to enhance yields and avoid crop losses. In addition, USFRA’s Industry Partners include companies that produce some of these products.
Farmers closely monitor pests, weeds and plant diseases by walking fields, digging into the soil and looking at the plant’s overall health. Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides and seed treatments are all tools to help manage these challenges and provide healthy choices. Furthermore, all farmers want to protect their land and keep their soil healthy because, without good soil, their businesses would be in jeopardy. Precise management of these tools – based on science, education and a commitment to the environment – is essential to a healthy farm.
Proper use of these tools should not be underestimated. For example, if U.S. farmers did not use pesticides supplies of corn, wheat, and soybeans would decrease 73 percent, trigger price instability, slow U.S. food aid programs to poor countries, and increase worldwide hunger. During the 2012 drought, without proper pesticide use, the insect population would swell, like during the Dust Bowl, and destroy even more crops.
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/safety/factsheets/pestuse.pdf
A key component to raising good crops is available nutrients in the soil, such as nitrogen, phosphorus, lime (calcium) and potassium, and farmers closely monitor soil health. Through extensive research, farmers have a better understanding of how to best replenish soil nutrients and increase yields, even now to micronutrients like zinc and manganese. Additionally, there has been extensive university research regarding timing of fertilizer applications for optimum plant uptake and reduced leaching. http://plantsci.missouri.edu/nutrientmanagement/nitrogen/practices.htm
Farmers use fertilizers to grow high-yielding crops and to take care of the soil, rather than stripping the land of its natural resources. Often man-made fertilizers or manure applications are used to increase nitrogen fertility in the soil, which is a key component for growing corn. To avoid over-applying and efficiently using their resources, nutrient levels are tested.
Farmers use all components – herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers – with respect to the environment. They carefully follow labels and consider weather patterns that may impact the efficacy or leaching of an application. Further, farmers are incentivized to properly manage these tools because of the cost. Most strive to reduce the “inputs” they use to be more profitable. According to a University of Illinois Extension ag economist, to raise a corn crop in 2011, the average cost per acre was estimated at $832/acre. That number includes land costs, labor, crop protection, fertilizer and seed.
Due to genetic advancements developed within the plant – like biotech traits – many of these tools are used more efficiently. In many cases, crop protection and fertility applications are used so precisely that application amounts are often reduced. Because of Bt developments in corn, a study assessing the global economic and environmental impacts of biotech crops for the first nine years (1996-2004) of adoption showed that the technology has reduced pesticide spraying by 172 million kg and has reduced environmental footprints associated with pesticide use by 14% http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/4/default.asp
Additionally, because of conventional breeding and overall plant health, many crops can withstand plant diseases better than crops in the past. Other innovations, like Global Positioning Systems (GPS) in tractors and spray machines, have greatly increased precision by applying only where needed rather than widespread field applications. Most farmers involved have learned ways to reduce nitrogen use by 50 lbs. per acre or more by using this technology.
http://www.nitrogennews.com/factsheet-farm-solutions/
Wholly or partially funded by one or more Checkoff programs.
Comments (0)
Questions & Answers
Why can’t farmers stop using pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers?
Bugs, crop diseases and weeds are realities of life. Whether organic or conventional, farmers face these challenges each day. If tools like insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers were not available, entire crops could be wiped out and the stability of our food supply would be destroyed.
- For example: “Without pesticides, U.S. food production would drop and food prices would soar. With lower production and higher prices, U.S. farmers would be less competitive in global markets for major grains, cotton, and peanuts. U.S. exports of corn, wheat, and soybeans would drop 27 percent, with a loss of 132,000 jobs. A pesticide ban in the U.S. would decrease year-ending supplies of corn, wheat, and soybeans 73 percent, trigger price instability, slow U.S. food aid programs to poor countries, and increase worldwide hunger.”
Comments (0)What about the nitrate runoff in the Chesapeake Bay?
Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay region are tackling water quality challenges and rising chemical fertilizer and fuel costs. In southeastern Pennsylvania, 135 farmers taking part in the On Farm Network are using tools like the end-of-season cornstalk nitrate test, aerial imagery and replicated strip trials to learn whether too little, excess, or optimal nitrogen fertilizer was applied and to fine-tune nitrogen management. Fertilizer application rates and timing, as well as conservation practices such as cover crops, are also utilized to allow farmers to conserve nitrogen.
http://www.nitrogennews.com/factsheet-farm-solutions/
Comments (0)Farmers are using more chemicals than ever, right? They just dump them on their crops.
Farmers carefully evaluate crop conditions before applying any type of crop production measures. Such applications are expensive, and labels are carefully followed to avoid adverse consequences. Farmers also look to their local crop extension service or crop consultants for recommendations before applying crop protection or fertilizer. In some cases, over applying can do more harm than good (i.e. applying too much fertilizer to corn post emergence can cause leaf damage).
If farmers overuse these tools and hurt their own land, their businesses would suffer and eventually fail. Bad, toxic or depleted soil doesn’t grow good crops. Also, these tools cost a lot of money – farmers try to use as little as possible to save costs. Farmers are stewards of the environment, considering factors like ground water, runoff and pollution. They continually think about the consequences to avoid pollution. They strive to savor the land’s quality for future farming generations.
Farmers and spray operators follow regulations put forth by the EPA. EPA and the states (usually that state's agriculture office) register or license pesticides for use in the United States. EPA receives its authority to register pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Farmers document everything they use.
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/
Over the past few decades, farmers have been able to use fewer inputs while increasing yields.
- In 2007, roughly 877 million pounds of active ingredients were applied to U.S. cropland at a cost of roughly $7.9 billion. In comparison, in 1980, roughly 1.1 billion pounds of active ingredients were applied at a cost of roughly $7.1 billion (in inflation-adjusted dollars). Usage went down – while yields went up.
- Since its peak in 1999, the use of pesticides by the US agricultural market sector decreased from 956 million pounds, to 877 million pounds in 2007.
http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/pestsales/07pestsales/historical_data2007_3.htm#5_2
Comments (0)Are herbicides contributing to Super Weeds?
Research is underway to determine the cause of super weeds. There are several hypotheses regarding the development of super weeds. Most recently, researchers looked at soil microbes as a cause for super weeds when it comes to resistance to glyphosate. To date, the cause cannot be determined, but researchers are evaluating this issue. Farmers, especially in the southern-growing regions, have encountered increased challenges due to weeds in their fields.
http://cornandsoybeandigest.com/crop-chemicals/glyphosate-resistant-superweeds-may-be-less-susceptible-diseases
Additionally, farmers employ management practices to reduce the chance or slow the movement of super weeds. They rotate crops from year to year. They also use multiple modes of action, which means farmers use several different types of herbicides to avoid or reduce the chance of creating weed resistance.
Comments (0)How are pesticides impacting honey bee populations?
Several studies have been conducted on honey bee colony collapse disorder (CCD). It’s unclear the overall impact of pesticides on honey bees. Studies have revealed honey bees die from large pesticide concentrations that potentially interact with other pesticides. However, the studies have not tested environmentally relevant pesticides with concentrations more appropriate to farm usage. Further, the pesticides detected with the greatest frequency and quantities are those used by beekeepers to control mites.
http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/ccd/ccdprogressreport2011.pdf
Comments (0)What about the dirty dozen? Should I buy organic for those produce items?
The most important consideration for people trying to eat a healthy diet is to eat 5-9 servings of fruit and vegetables a day. That by far outweighs any decision to eat organic or conventional produce. Not consuming enough healthy food does much more harm to your body than consuming produce with extremely minimal amounts of pesticides.
Many studies show that pesticides detected on the products noted in the Environmental Working Group’s “Dirty Dozen” are negligible for human health. Still, consumers have many choices about the produce they buy and can make personal decisions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135239/
Comments (0)How do crop protection and fertilizers impact water quality?
Changes of nitrate concentrations were evaluated in groundwater samples collected from 1,225 wells in 56 well networks across the United States (Lindsey and Rupert, 2012). Of the 56 well networks that were analyzed for changes in nitrate concentrations using the Wilcoxon-Pratt signed-rank test (1959), 13 had statistically significant increases in concentrations of nitrate. Five well networks had statistically significant decreases in concentrations of nitrate.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/studies/gwtrends/map.php?map=NO3
Comments (0)What innovations are improving use?
Several innovations in recent years have improved the efficiency of using herbicides, pesticides, fungicides and fertilizers. Here are a few examples:
- Buffer strips and trees between crops and waterways can filter nitrogen and prevent it from seeping into groundwater or rivers and streams
- Global Positioning System (GPS) technologies allow farmers to vary the rate of fertilizer application across a given field precisely, tailoring the amount applied to a particular portion of a field to the amount needed by the plants growing there. Most growers involved have learned ways to reduce nitrogen use by 50 lbs. per acre or more without reducing profits.
- Dairy farmers in California’s Central Valley are using a new tool that helps them improve groundwater quality and reduce chemical fertilizer use. The project includes installing flow meters in dairy lagoons to allow the controlled application of nitrogen-rich wastewater at beneficial levels, and using an in-field nitrogen test that tells farmers how much of this key nutrient they are applying to avoid water quality impacts. They then time applications to maximize crop uptake of nitrogen and prevent nitrate and salt migration into surface water or groundwater.
- The use of seed treatments protects a plant during its germination and formative weeks from the damaging impact of pests and diseases without having to use pesticide sprays. (NCGA)
- Fertilizer application rates and timing, as well as conservation practices such as cover crops, are also utilized to allow farmers to conserve nitrogen
Comments (0)Organic farming doesn’t use pesticides or fungicides, right?
Organic farmers have the opportunity to use pesticides and fungicides on their crops, just like conventional farmers. Organic farmers choose from organic certified pesticides and fungicides, which are outlined by the USDA Certified Organic program. According to Scientific America, there are more than 20 options that qualify for U.S. Organic Standards. Some of these options include copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin.
http://grist.org/organic-food/2011-07-21-in-defense-of-organic/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/07/18/mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/
Comments (0)Definitions for each
- Fertilizer: A chemical or natural substance added to soil to increase its fertility
- Herbicide: A substance that is toxic to plants and is used to destroy unwanted vegetation and weeds.
- Fungicide: A chemical that destroys fungus.
- Seed treatments: The term "treated" means given an application (seed coating) of a pesticide or fungicide that’s designed to reduce, control or repel disease organisms, insects, or other pests that attack seed or seedlings grown from treated seed. Treated seeds can reduce the amount of pesticide of fungicide that has to be applied to the land.
Infographics
Videos
How can today's food system meet the growing global demand to produce more food using fewer resources? Learn more and join the conversation. http://www.foodintegrity.org
What is the Ethical Choice for People, Animals and Planet?
How can today's food system meet the growing global demand to produce more food using fewer resources? Learn more and join the conversation. http://www.foodintegrity.org
The Great Debate: Science, Technology and Food
What technologies are farmers and ranchers using to produce food while protecting the environment? Is more research the answer to biotechnology in agriculture? Moderator Michael Specter joined by panelists Daniel M. Dooley, Dr. Bob Goldberg, Eric Holst, Neil Moseley, Tim Nilsen, Katie Pratt, Karen Ross, Richard Smith and Stuart Woolf discussed these questions.
The Atlantic's Third Annual Food Summit Discussion
On May 24, Chris Novak, CEO of the National Pork Board, will speak on behalf of USFRA at The Third Annual Food Summit hosted by The Atlantic in Washington, D.C. Chris Novak will join a wide range of voices for a panel discussion called "Feeding a World at Nine Billion—Sustainably." The panel discussion is part of a broader event that will address food production, consumption, and regulation issues in the food and agriculture sectors.
Why do farmers embrace technology?
Technological advancements aren't only used to boost a farmer's bottomline. Rather, it's part of an over-arching goal each farmer has, which is sustainability and working towards a healthier environment.What Other Questions Are On Your Mind? Submit
Food Dialogues
Farmyard CSA Phoenix - Buy Fruits and Vegetables from an Organic Farm in Arizona
Farmyard sells organically produced vegetables, herbs, fruits, and fresh eggs grown using organic practices at urban micro-farms located in Phoenix and Scottsdale. Subscriptions are offered in 10-week lots and members receive a weekly basket for those 10 weeks.
Farmyard CSA Phoenix - Buy Fruits and Vegetables from an Organic Farm in Arizona
Details About Farmyard Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Program
Farmyard Website: www.myfarmyard.com
Farmyard Phone: 602-954-1440
Pick up or delivery? Delivery only. Areas within 5 driving miles of 44th Street & Indian School in central Phoenix are free, outside that area there's a delivery charge.
How do you pay? In advance
Farmyard CSA Phoenix - Buy Fruits and Vegetables from an Organic Farm in Arizona
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)