Comments on: The latest on GM foods

By: Cathy Richards

Cathy Richards — Wed, 16 Jun 2010 02:06:58 +0000

I’m totally stunned by their definition of sustainable — producing MORE food on LESS land? How do they propose to do that?

““if they were produced using sustainable practices to feed more people using fewer resources such as land and pesticides.” “

By: Mica

Mica — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:10:18 +0000

@Katie –

When we sell a specialty product like Vistive Gold (or the original Vistive oil) soybeans, we work with oil processors to have an “identity-preserved system” set up. Basically, this is a fancy way of saying that the farmers work with the oil processor to deliver the soybeans at harvest separate from their regular (commodity) soybeans. Farmers are paid more for the Vistive soybeans than regular soybeans so they make sure that they plant, store and harvest Vistive beans separately.

The processor also keeps the grain separate as it’s crushed into oil and delivers the specialty oil to food processors and food companies. It’s called “identity preserved” because the goal is to keep the identity of the specialty soybean separate and distinct through the whole supply chain. There is a financial reason to do so because a mixing of the regular and specialty oil means revenue is lost from the premium product.

The identity-preserved system has been implemented on other products in agriculture.

Mica

By: Karl Haro von Mogel

Karl Haro von Mogel — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 15:16:44 +0000

I wanted to point out a few things about the sugar beets and alfalfa Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) topic brought up by Marion here:
“Last year, a judge ruled that GM sugar beets, which now comprise 90% or more of sugar beet plantings, could not be planted again until the USDA did an EIS. Oops. Somehow, the USDA forgot to do an EIS in 2005 when it allowed GM beets to be planted.”
This is leaving out an important piece of information – according to USDA policy, they first conducted an Environmental Assessment – a shorter, less-involved version of the EIS, and this was conducted for sugar beets, alfalfa, and on back to previous crops. If something comes up in the Environmental Assessment (EA), then it triggers the more involved Environmental Impact Statement. The EA’s for sugar beets and alfalfa gave a passing grade to these crops, and so they were approved. The court cases against both of those crops concluded that the EIS was required no-matter-what. The current Supreme Court case related to the GE alfalfa, if you read the transcript of the hearing, focused in part on whether the agency or the court is supposed to decide what constitutes sufficient review for new GE crops). How exactly to regulate GE crops is an important question, as well as how to regulate other methods of modifying the genetics of plants. It is interesting to note that making a plant resistant to herbicides by mutagenesis is subject to virtually no environmental review – even though the potential environmental impact with regard to weeds is essentially the same.

It is simply incorrect that the USDA “forgot” to do an EIS, up until now it was policy to conduct an EA first, which may change depending upon the outcome of the Supreme Court case, along with some statements from Vilsack that suggest they may do EIS’s in the first place in the future. (Maybe to avoid the regulatory pendulum swings.)

Re: Stan – GE crops such as corn and cotton have dramatically decreased insecticide use, even the Organic Center and Charles Benbrook admit to that. Where it gets sticky is the role of herbicide tolerance, which hasn’t really decreased herbicide use on a per-pound basis (and Benbrook estimates an increase in that), however the Roundup herbicide has a much lower adverse environmental impact than the herbicides it replaced, like Atrazine – I’m sure you’ve heard about the nasty effects of that one. So while the number of pounds may be more, the environmental impact is lower.

Genetic engineering is a tool, and it can be used for many traits. Genetic engineering itself does not increase or decrease pesticide use per se, but genetic engineering for pest resistance decreases it, and herbicide tolerance can increase it or keep it relatively the same. As I mentioned above, you can get herbicide tolerance through mutagenesis, look up “clearfield” canola which is one example. Does mutageneis increase pesticide use? Clearly, the trait is what matters in its effect and not the method by which it was produced.
The genetics of our food is a complicated issue, and it is hard to get all the facts straight. I’d like to pitch Biofortified (www.biofortified.org), an independent group blog on plant genetics that I and other plant geneticists write on to help explain some of this stuff. We welcome questions and hope that more people will join the discussion!

By: Nutrinotas, Semana Junio 6-12, 2010

Nutrinotas, Semana Junio 6-12, 2010 — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 00:32:38 +0000

[...] La Dra. Marion Nestle (no relación con la compañía), profesora del Departamento de Nutrición de la Universidad de New York (NYU), autora de entre otros libros de “Food Politics” cómo la industria de alimentos influye en la nutrición y la salud, acaba de publicar un nuevo libro “Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety” (traducción: Alimentos Seguros: La Política de la Seguridad de los Alimentos), según ella misma más de la mitad del libro está dedicada a la política de los alimentos genéticamente modificados. [...]

By: Renee

Renee — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 20:56:15 +0000

I don’t know if I would mind the GM foods so much if the companies weren’t so greedy. To sue farmers because seed has drifted, etc., is so very mean-spirited. That’s what I think of when I think of GM foods: greedy, mean, people running the corporations.

By: stan

stan — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 15:14:44 +0000

“And consistent with the 2008 survey, 77 percent of respondents said they would buy foods produced through biotechnology if they helped cut pesticide use.”

Who are they trying to kid? GM technology increases pesticide use exponentially!

By: Michael

Michael — Sun, 06 Jun 2010 13:47:57 +0000

Nirvanna, without much searching, I found this study from Cornell. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/organic.farm.vs.other.ssl.html

It shows organic methods returning higher yields while using less water, energy, and no pesticides.

Another appears to demonstrate the ability of organics to use less water in the cultivation of rice. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071014202450.htm

I would be curious to know where you found the “3x” number. Also, does that account for the land and water used to manufacture any pesticides and fertilizers?

By: Nirvanna

Nirvanna — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 18:24:54 +0000

How ironic. The italicized portion of point 4 states something about consumers preferring food grown from fewer natural resources…..yet the demand for organics, which uses 3X the amount f land and water to get the same yields as non-organic, continues to resonate with Joe Public. That will be changing soon, as it already has in water starved California

By: Stop Blogging and Cook » WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

Stop Blogging and Cook » WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 13:59:16 +0000

[...] Nestle’s updated book, Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, discusses GMOs. While I have not read it yet, Ms Nestle is a respected authority on the politics [...]

By: Katie

Katie — Sat, 05 Jun 2010 09:26:08 +0000

Dear Mica,

How will Monsanto ensure that Vistive Gold doesn’t make it into the soybean oil used for my cooking? Do you have jurisdiction over how the soybean is used after it is harvested? I would have thought the farmer could do what he liked with it, including selling it for soybean oil. Will my oil be labelled Vistive Gold-Free?

Thanks,
Katie