Comments Meredith Niles has made

Actually Ecoplasm there have been indications to me  from the Hill that waste aeration is not just the process you describe, that it could (and I say could) include a more progressive list of practices including pasture and forage based animals.

Eileen these are attempts to find solutions to myriad and difficult problems.  If organic agriculture is not part of the solution as the U.N. has indicated, what would you propose instead? 

Eileen2- I'm confused as to what your implying with your comments.  Are you suggesting that giving people constructive jobs with food security, social and environmental benefits would be a downfall?  Do you think that keeping people entrenched in poverty in shantytowns is a good alternative to giving them jobs in organic agriculture?  I'm just trying to gain clarity on your statements.

To be clear regarding your comment- no-till can offer a variety of other environmental benefits like erosion control and water retention but I am looking at these studies from a climate change perspective- nitrous oxide emissions, increased pesticide use and sequestration benefits.  And yes, there are some studies that show that no-till does increase carbon sequestration- but usually only in the top part of the soil, and when compared to the entire soil profile of no-till vs. conventional, most studies find no overall difference.

There are some efforts to pilot no-till organic efforts like at the Rodale Institute in Pennsylvania, which have shown positive results.  But, let's be clear- it's not cherry picking it's focusing on the climate perspective of the issue, and from that perspective the evidence for no-till is not looking promising.

JustLou- thanks for your extensive comments. Just one thing I'd like to further comment on with regards to hunger. You touched on a very important point- even if GMO crops were engineered with increased nutritional content, they would still require the fundamental pesticides and synthetic fertilizers necessary to grow the crops currently. Such external inputs are out of the economic reach of most farmers being affected by hunger. Further- the cost of GMO seeds are just not possible for most farmers, and since many companies, particularly Monsanto are raising the cost of those seeds, it seems even less likely.  Solutions to hunger require methods that are both accessible and affordable to those most affected by hunger- small scale farmers in developing countries.

You also mention the spraying of additional pesticides to counter the resistance we are beginning to see in glyphosate- a fantastic point. Unfortunately, many of these pesticides are far more toxic than glyphosate and Roundup. Atrazine, one of the top corn pesticides in the U.S. is banned in Europe because of its demonstrated human health impacts as a carcinogen. So, its certainly an important point, thanks for mentioning.

Hi Eliza,

Thanks for joining the conversation and I will be sure to check out the other conversation. You bring up some very good points- how do citizens avoid GMO crops if it is a system we have decided that we do not want to participate in? Whether your issue with GMO crops is about pesticide use, seed sovereignty and ownership, corporate control, or farmer rights, there are many reasons for people to avoid such products. Unfortunately in the United States we have not been given the "right to know". Unlike other countries including most in the European Union, Asia and most recently, South Africa, we do not label foods that contain GMO products. This makes it incredibly difficult for most consumers who want to avoid such products to do so.

Fortunately there are many ways to be smart about GMOs and do your best to avoid them. First of all, the Center for Food Safety publishes a GMO shoppers guide which details the companies and products that do and do not contain GMOs. Second, organically certified products are not allowed to contain GMO products, although there are certainly issues with cross contamination in fields (very hard to control nature once the crops are out there!). Lastly, you can understand what big crops are cultivated in the U.S. that are likely GMO and avoid those products. In the United States four crops--corn, soy, cotton, and canola, are almost the entire market of GMO crops and seeds. So, most of these products wind up in our food through processed and packaged foods- i.e. high fructose corn syrup, soy lecithin, canola oil, soybean oil, etc. As a result, it is estimated that 70% of all packaged foods in the grocery store contain GMOs. So, if you eat packaged foods, buy organic. But, fortunately conventional produce items for the most part with the exception of papaya are not GMO. So shop for the fresh stuff liberally.

If you really want to be green about your food and you care about not buying GMO, then support organic and local and ask questions. More importantly, get politically active. Obama has publicly stated he would support a label for GMO foods. And, polls show that if GMO foods were labeled in the U.S. an overwhelming majority of people wouldnt buy them. So, sign up for our action alerts on our website at www.centerforfoodsafety.org and be informed about bills that may be coming up that you can try to support to them. Kucinich introduces bills almost every year for labeling.

Feel free to contact me if you have any more questions.

Shaun,

Thanks for your comments and your contribution to the conversation. I can assure you that I do check my facts and the Center for Food Safety, as well as myself, prides itself on issuing reports, fact sheets and writings that are based on peer-reviewed science and government data- NOT the industry statistics reflected in the ISAAA. The Center for Food Safety is an organization with a reputation for doing so, and I believe you will realize that if you take a closer look at our website and our research. One of the great problems that we have with being accurate about the data on pesticide use associated with GMO crops is that in many cases there simply is not data available. For years the USDA has had a program on chemical usage where it has outlined the types of pesticides used within the United States and not only the amount of pesticides sprayed but the intensity at which they are sprayed- a crucial point as we begin to see resistant weeds.

Unfortunately, the chemical usage reporting program was not funded last year meaning that there are only industry statistics to rely on, which often do not sample a large size of people or target certain areas. But we just received word that the new budget does reinstate the program- something we should truly thank the Obama administration for. However, I would encourage you to look at several reports that do not utilize the industry's data published in the ISAAA reports, but instead uses USDA data. The first is a report by Dr. Chuck Benbrook, the former head of the National Academy of Sciences Agriculture Division. Dr. Benbrook has a Ph.D. and has done exhaustive research in this area. He has published his analysis at:http://www.biotechinfo.net/technicalpaper7.html

As well, Weed Science has published an excellent piece detailing the number of resistant weeds that have sprung up in the past few years as a result of glyphosate crops- now more than 20 states report real and difficult problems with glyphosate resistant weeds. This piece is available at: http://www.biotechinfo.net/technicalpaper7.html.

Furthermore, our own analysis, which were presented at the USDA's Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and 21st Century Agriculture in 2007, show an increase in the intensity of herbicides being used since the introduction of GMO crops. Utilizing the USDA data from the chemical usage program, we found that there was a 2.5 fold increase in pounds per acre used on Roundup Ready soybeans in the United States between 1994 and 2006. This document and others which very extensively detail our data and other scientific support are available on our website. The United States Climate Change Science Program has further noted in their assessment report that glyphosate will lose its efficacy in the face of climate change impacts, and as such could result in increased pesticide use.

Furthermore, there is evidence in the United States that actually farmers are turning away from GMO crops, who have used them in the past. This is especially true for soybeans in the Southeast of the United States and there have been several articles written on the topic.

I'd also like to not detract from the broader message of my piece which is truly the ethics of the company and their message vs. their reality. I am actually very surprised that farmers throughout the United States and Canada who are growing GMO crops were not outraged at the significant increase in cost of both roundup and the seeds marketed by Monsanto at the height of a food crisis, when the company made record profits. This is an issue of a corporation exploiting the farmers and the people who use their products at a time when none of us can afford to be taken advantage of.

Hi Biodiversitist-  in the legislation they define "biomass" as all crop residues, so it could be anything from biodiesel to ethanol from various sources.  Biomass also includes manure digestion.  As well, the way the bill is written right now it only has credits for biomass for the renewable electricity credits, but it is likely that they will be promulgated into offset credits, although that remains to be determined by the administrator.  Anyone can petition the administrator to add or remove an offset program, and the EPA has one year to decide on whether or not such a program will exist.

USDA already compared organic and no-till

Hi Alex280, thanks for your comments and interesting additions.  The link you sent did not work so I was not able to see the letter published online.  With regards to comparing no-till and organic, the USDA did a study on this over a 9 year time period.  It can be found at http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070710.htm. It showed that organic beat conventional no-till in being able to build soil organic matter, which is crucial for retaining water and allowing plants to withstand droughts.  

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org

A triple victory

California voters have made a true statement for not only animal welfare but the environment and human health.  By banning the worst animal offenses including veal crates, gestation crates and battery cages they are also voting to protect our environment and health by standing up to a system that mismanages manure and environmental burdens and promotes disease.  I can only hope that other states follow suit and we can see these practices outlawed throughout the country.  Great job California!On California OKs measure requiring more humane treatment of farm animals posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

Clarifications on "must"

Hi Skeptico,
  Thanks again for all of your continued interest in this topic.  Its great to see so many posts and interest!

I am glad we can agree that the Indian situation is certainly devastating.  That is an interesting perspective presented by the Financial Times.  The issues to which I am referring are more specifically related to GM cotton, not rice.  However, the Financial Times is a little misleading because there is actually no GM rice commercially available in India.  In developing countries at present, the main issue with biotech seeds is their cost.  In India, GM (Bt) cotton seeds can cost 4 times as much as conventional seeds, often leading cotton farmers to borrow at high interest rates from moneylenders.  If the GM cotton gets hit with secondary pests, the farmer will end up spending as much on insecticides as conventional farmers who paid much less for their seed, and can become trapped in debt.  GM cotton is heavily promoted in India so many farmers believe that it can offer them hope, but as the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" indicates through personal interviews, many farmers are no longer planting GM cotton because of the aforementioned issues.

In response to your comments about my "must" comment.  The "must" I refer to is the price that farmers must pay if they wish to plant GMO seeds year after year.  Once a farmer begins planting GMO seeds, they have to sign agreements, specifically with companies like Monsanto, in which they declare that they will not replant or save their seeds.  These agreements are legally binding, and thus, actually do require farmers to return to the corporation to purchase their seeds year after year.  So if they want to plant these crops, they MUST buy them.  Infringements on this, whether through actual deliberate plantings or cross-contamination (i.e. nature pollinating neighboring crops) can result in lawsuits on farmers.  In fact, Monsanto has an entire legal team of 75 lawyers devoted solely to investigating and suing farmers.  The Center for Food Safety has produced an extensive report titled, "Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers" which details these issues found online at:  http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/Monsantovsusfarmersrep ... .  

I certainly hear your point being that a farmer is not being forced to purchase GMO seeds.  Although, in the United States it is getting harder and harder to purchase some types of crops that are not GM.  The most obvious example of this is soybeans, in which 90% of them have the Round-Up Ready gene present.  Monsanto continues to buy smaller seed companies throughout the world every year which is decreasing market competition and making it more and more difficult to purchase seeds that are not owned by this, or other, large corporations.  

It seems like one of the initial reasons farmers may choose to plant GMO is the simplified weed control and reduced labor inputs to control weeds.  Yet, as weeds increase and become resistant, pesticide use increases (which it has done significantly in the past 10 years) and the economic benefits will begin to drop off.  Unfortunately, once a farmer is in the system of growing GM, it's hard to get out- because soil organic matter has been depleted with application of synthetic pesticides and the transition to a more organic system of agriculture will be difficult.

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org

The studies

Richard DR-  Thank you for your interest in bringing a variety of academic information to the table.  The study you refer to is also one that was used by Greenpeace in their report, "Cool Farming".  This represents only one study about organics and a variety of others indicate quite the opposite.  I would encourage you to look at:

Olesen, et al., 2006. Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 112, 207-220)

Gronroos et al., 2006. Energy use in conventional and organic milk and rye bread production in Finland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 117, 109-118.

Cederberg et al., 2000. Life Cycle Assessment of milk production- a comparison of conventional and organic farming. Journal of Cleaner Production. 8, 49-60.  

The link to the USDA study is here:  http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/jul07/soil0707.htm
In writing, "Even the best conventional agriculture can't beat organic" I am referring to the ability of organic to increase soil health and to offset carbon emissions.  I believe that the USDA study clearly demonstrates this.  

You also assume that organic agriculture requires more land to produce, and assume that yields in organic agriculture are lower, when you state, "where do you think the extra land for growing organic is going to come from?"  In fact this is not true.  Numerous studies have demonstrated that organic agriculture can yield equal to, or even above conventional systems.  For example, please see: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.v ... to read about a 22 year study done at the Rodale Institute in conjunction with people from Cornell University, the University of Maryland and the USDA that demonstrated organic agriculture provided the same yields as conventional with far fewer fossil fuel inputs.  

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Garden Herbs

Fresh garden herbs are so delicious and easy to grow!  It is amazing what fresh herbs can do to any dish, and most people, no matter what type of house or apartment they live in, can grow them.  My next type of pesto I am going to try will be a sweet pesto- a pecan mint pesto for desserts.

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org

Certainly there are animal issues to consider

With regards to the reference by caniscandida, certainly there are many animal rights issues to consider in the production of all of our meat and dairy and I do not doubt this.  Thank you for reminding everyone that this should always be a part of the discussion in animal issues.  However, for this piece, I wanted to focus solely on the initiative of the Dairy industry and what they are doing to fight greenhouse gas emissions.  My piece was by no means meant to doubt the inhumane conditions that most of the animals raised for food in this country have to endure everyday and those issues absolutely need to be addressed.

Meredith Niles Cool Foods Campaign Coordinator The Center for Food Safety www.coolfoodscampaign.org www.centerforfoodsafety.org