Misguided Attack on Organic Foods

http://blog.ucsusa.org/the-misguided-attack-on-organically-grown-foods-beyond-oz-and-epa/

The Misguided Attack on Organically-Grown Foods – Beyond Oz and EPA

Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment

December 14, 2012

There has been a running, and often misguided, debate about the value of organic farming over the past few months.

Spraying pesticide onto apple trees. USDA photo by Keith Weller.

It was initiated by a research paper that purported to show that organic foods were not more nutritious than conventionally grown counterparts. That paper has rightly been criticized for poor methodology. There is also inherent difficulty in defining the complex nutritional status of whole foods.

But the biggest problem with the paper, and its use by those who want to discredit organic farming, is the lack of recognition of the importance of pesticide residues on foods, harm from pesticides to farmers and farm workers, and harm to the environment from synthetic-chemical dependent farming.

The land of Oz

Most recently, Dr. Mehmet Oz joined the bandwagon of the misinformed in his Time magazine story dismissing the value of organic food. While acknowledging his advice on the importance of eating more fruits and vegetables, even if one cannot get or afford higher-priced organic, Tom Philpott at Mother Jonescriticized Oz for ignoring the most compelling reasons for buying organic foods.

Instead of blithely dismissing those trying to improve agriculture to make it better for nutrition, safety, workers and the environment—by setting up the straw man of an elitist food movement—critics like Oz should be asking why the best foods, from the broader perspective of sustainability and environmental justice, are not more available to all segments of society.

Why, for example, are we spending billions of dollars a year on farm subsidies that go mostly to farmers who grow corn and soybeans and do not need them—including a proposed taxpayer-subsidized insurance scheme that would not substantially reduce handouts.

Why not instead support better access for low-income consumers to better quality foods, develop better insurance policies for the diverse farms that grow those foods, and support more research to improve the efficiency of farming organically or sustainably?

Trust us? – Pesticide cocktails revisited

An important blind spot about the health and environmental consequences of pesticides can be found in a brief statement in the earlier-mentioned paper about the nutritional value of organically grown food. The authors, after acknowledging that conventionally grown foods have higher levels of pesticide residues than organic, dismiss this by writing that EPA has not found those residues to be harmful.

This belies several serious limitations of EPA pesticide regulations.

First, the highest standards for health are reserved for consumption of foods, based on a “reasonable certainty of no harm” standard laid down in the Federal Food Drugs and Cosmetics Act (FFDCA). This standard is what the organic research paper indirectly referred to in dismissing concern about consumption of pesticide residues on food. Allowable pesticide residues are based on the results of numerous tests for toxicity, carcinogenicity, harm to susceptible populations like children, and so on.

But lower safety standards apply to farmers and farm workers, who are exposed through contact with skin and inhalation. Workers are protected by the Federal Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act (FFIRA), essentially providing that no unreasonable harm occurs.

So allowable worker pesticide exposure can be much higher after the workers go back into the fields, often as little as 12 to 24 hours after spraying, than through consumption of food (they are required to wear protective clothing and equipment, which is far from perfect). Worker safety is based largely on avoidance of short-term toxicity—sickness shortly after exposure—not long-term harm. This is despite the fact that  several cancers, such as non-Hodgkins lymphoma,  have higher incidence for farm workers and farm families. Is it elitist to be concerned about those who grow our foods? What happened to “first, do no harm”?

Second, the EPA standard for allowable environmental harm is also from FFIRA. This is part of the reason why our Midwest has been allowed to become a virtual biological desert. Without this permissive environmental standard for pesticides, it is questionable whether our current industrial monocultures of corn and soybeans (or fruit and vegetable monocultures in California or Florida), which should be replaced with highly productive sustainable alternatives, would be nearly as productive. An illustration of the low environmental standards at EPA is that FFRIRA is fine with the unnecessary decimation of milkweeds by Roundup herbicide used on herbicide-tolerant engineered crops, which is likely harming monarch butterflies. The way we farm conventionally-grown foods is also causing other huge environmental impacts from coastal dead zones to air pollution.

Mix it up

There are also several serious shortcomings in pesticide testing requirements under FFDCA that raise questions about the safety of allowable residues on foods.

EPA barely considers the possible harm from the cumulative impact of combinations of pesticides. Typically, we are exposed to several, not just one, and several are often found in our bodies. In 1996, congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), which among other things, requires the evaluation of cumulative pesticide exposure. This was a real step forward, but it only involves pesticides that are known to share the same toxic mode of action. But pesticides with different modes of action may interact with unpredictable impacts. Evaluation of all of the many possibly harmful combinations of pesticides found on our foods is a challenge to our regulatory capabilities.

Second, there is still a lot that we do not know about how pesticides or other chemicals may harm us. The recent paper about the possible contribution of some pesticides to obesity exemplifies this broader point. In the past we have understandably been focused on harms such as acute toxicity, cancer, teratogenicity (harm to the developing fetus), and a few others.

It was only with the passage of the FQPA that regulation of endocrine disruption, for which obesogens are one example, was even mandated by the law. And it has only been in the past several years that EPA has developed assays for possible endocrine disruption. So far, most pesticides have not been re-evaluated for their endocrine-disruption potential. Our emerging understanding—which still has a lot of holes—of possible effects on obesity from pesticides has been even more recent, and I do not believe that EPA requires any specific tests for this effect. One particularly worrisome aspect of endocrine disruptors is that some may cause harm at extremely low levels, often in the parts per billion range.

There is still a lot that we do not know about how pesticides can cause harm. There are numerous other aspects of our physiology and biochemistry that could be affected by pesticides, leading to many other possible harms that we can’t predict and have no current tests to detect. This suggests some reasonable caution concerning our food.

So the case for organic—and sustainable food that requires much less pesticide—is about a lot more than the nutritional differences between organic and conventionally-grown crops. Respected spokepeople like Dr. Oz have an opportunity be leaders in the larger discussion about food and how we produce it. It is a shame that he squandered that opportunity.

Posted in: Food and Agriculture Tags: Dr. Oz, food, nutrition, organic, pesticides

About the author: Doug Gurian-Sherman is a widely-cited expert on biotechnology and sustainable agriculture. He holds a Ph.D. in plant pathology.

Support from UCS members make work like this possible. Will you join us? Help UCS advance independent science for a healthy environment and a safer world.

Are GMO's safe?

http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-the-long-term-safety-of-genetically-engineered-food-settled-not-by-a-long-shot/

Is the Long-Term Safety of Genetically Engineered Food Settled? Not by a Long Shot.

Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment, Union of Concerned Scientists

One of the most contentious issues surrounding the controversy about genetically engineered (GE) foods is whether there may be long-term safety risks, and whether current regulations are sufficient to prevent such risks from occurring.

As I briefly discussed in my last post, major science organizations have said that some GE foods produced by current methods could be harmful, and have provided some examples of the kinds of harm that might occur.

The current situation

Most corn, soybeans, and cotton in the U.S. are engineered to contain one or several genes for insect or herbicide resistance. Many more types of engineered genes are in the works. Photo by danellesheree.

No long-term safety tests in animals are required by any regulatory agency. In some circumstances, 90-day, so-called sub-chronic tests may be required in Europe. But 90 days is far short of the one to two years that usually satisfy long-term safety test requirements.

Long-term experiments are required for products like drugs and chemical pesticides, and sometimes for food additives. They are considered important or necessary for determining harm that may take years to develop, such as cancers, Parkinson’s disease, and so on.

Recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Board of Directors cited a review of several long-term and multi-generational studies by Snell and colleagues in support of their claim that GE foods are safe and well tested.

The study cited by the AAAS Board has made the rounds in recent months, being used to claim that long-term studies show that GE is safe, and that shorter-term tests are sufficient.

The study authors extrapolate from the reviewed research that GE crops can be safely used in foods, based on currently required tests. For example, at the end of the paper’s abstract they write: “The studies reviewed present evidence to show that GM plants are nutritionally equivalent to their non-GM counterparts and can be safely used in food and feed.” They also conclude that 90-day tests are usually sufficient, and even these may not always be needed.

The study makes some useful contributions, but a careful reading shows that it contains some serious flaws. These limitations — some of which involve the interpretation of the results by the authors — eliminate the value of this study for drawing general conclusions about the safety of GE foods, or the adequacy of current shorter tests to reveal long-term risks from engineered foods.

TO READ THE REST: http://blog.ucsusa.org/is-the-long-term-safety-of-genetically-engineered-food-settled-not-by-a-long-shot/

Cincinnati Passes Resolution Requiring GE Food Labeling

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_26634.cfm

• Eco Watch, November 16, 2012 Straight to the Source 
  
  

Yesterday, the city of Cincinnati became the first in Ohio to pass a resolution to require the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods, citing that consumers should have the right to know what is in their food. The consumer advocacy organization Food & Water Watch brought the resolution to city council as a part of their "Let Me Decide" campaign to make GE labeling the law. GE foods have not been fully tested for their impacts on human health and the environment.

Alison Auciello, Ohio-based organizer for Food & Water Watch said, "genetically engineered foods are potentially unsafe, and consumers should have the right to decide for themselves if they want to eat GE foods. It took regulation to get food processors to label ingredients and nutrition facts on labels, and now we're calling for federal lawmakers to require the labeling of GE food."

The majority of processed foods are genetically engineered, but unlike fat, sodium and sugar content, labels do not disclose which foods contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients. Biotechnology companies submit their own safety-testing data, and independent research is limited on GE foods because licensing agreements that control the use of patented seeds prohibit cultivation for research purposes.

Genetically engineered foods are made by inserting the genetic material from one organism into another to achieve a desired characteristic such as resistance to herbicides or pesticides. Roundup Ready varieties of corn, for example, are engineered to withstand treatment with the Roundup herbicide. But, the unintended consequence of increased use of herbicides has been a rise in "superweeds," aggressive weed species like ragweed and pigweed that have become immune to Roundup.

Cincinnati Council Member and resolution co-sponsor Wendell Young said, "this is about transparency, about ensuring that people can make informed choices about what they feed themselves and their families. Consumers have a right to know what is in their food, especially until we know for certain whether genetically engineered foods are truly safe."  

>>> Read t

Gurian-Sherman on GMO drought resistance

http://blog.ucsusa.org/a-less-thirsty-future-through-engineered-crops/

A Less Thirsty Future Through Engineered Crops?

Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist, Food and Environment

September 13, 2012

An op-ed in the Wall Street Journal sees a bright future for crops engineered for drought tolerance, water use efficiency, and other useful traits. The author, R. Paul Thompson, criticizes our recent report, “High and Dry,” for expressing too little faith in the ability of science and technology to make good on its unmet promises about genetic engineering.

The basic point of the article is that new technologies typically start slow, but get more effective and less expensive as they mature,  so we should expect GE to get cheaper and more effective too.

Corn plant in drought-cracked soil. Copyright iStockphoto.com/Drbouz

New Improved Biotech?

Clearly technologies can advance, and the author provides a few cases in point. But technologies do not always significantly improve or become much cheaper. The backers of nuclear power claimed it would become “too cheap to meter” after it was rolled out more than half a century ago. Nuclear power is still expensive, and still faces big technological hurdles such as the disposal of nuclear waste. And after Fukushima, we are less sanguine about its safety as well.

Technologies may face challenges that ultimately do not find adequate solutions, for technical, social, or economic reasons. Thompson implies that UCS considered only current aspects of GE drought tolerant crops without understanding that they may improve over time. In fact, we did analyze the prospects of GE drought tolerance for coming years.

Thompson ignores the part of our report that examines why the technology faces significant challenges in addressing drought. These include unanswered questions about complex and unpredictable interactions of engineered genes with the rest of the workings of the crop that may result in undesirable tradeoffs in crop properties.

An important reason for considering the current state of genetically engineered drought tolerance, and its prospects, is to inform our investments in agricultural science to improve our ability to confront the challenges that Thompson and others have noted. Should those investments be based on our best information regarding what works, as we contend, or on the hope that we will find ways to make GE substantially cheaper and more effective?

And the truth is, we can make major headway toward answering agriculture’s challenges now–we don’t need to hold our breaths to see if GE will improve! We already have multiple ways to substantially address Thompson’s agricultural challenges, but we are not implementing them widely, or adequately supporting research to improve them.

Conventional breeding is already producing numerous drought tolerant crops, as noted in “High and Dry”. There is also substantial evidence from recent genetics studies to suggest that conventional breeding can continue to produce big improvements in drought tolerance and other traits, which is also discussed in the report. And there are clear benefits from ecologically-based farming systems that employ practices like long crop rotations (alternating crops from year to year) and the addition and recycling of nutrients and organic matter in the form of manure, mulches, and cover crops.

For example, Thompson wants to blunt the damaging effect of fertilizers and pesticides on the environment. But we already know that cover crops can typically reduce nitrogen fertilizer pollution by 40 to 70 percent, reduce the need for pesticides and fertilizers, enrich the soil, and maintain or increase crop productivity. Cover crops are not widely used today due to misplaced policies like insurance penalties, and lack of research and infrastructure to make them more farmer-friendly. Other ecologically based farming methods can provide similar benefits.

The typical refrain from some promoters of GE is that we need all of these methods of meeting our agricultural challenges. That remains an assertion that has never been demonstrated, because there are probably several paths to achieving food security that include conventional breeding, agroecology, reducing food waste, empowerment of poor farmers (especially women), and more judicious consumption of meat, which is an inefficient source of protein and calories.

And Thompson never mentions that producing enough food alone won’t ensure that everyone is well fed, as the billion people who have too little food now demonstrates. It is not enough to understand the safety and efficacy of a technology, as Thompson contends, we also need to understand whether it may be compatible with justice and fairness.

One could argue that prudence suggests that every technology should be aggressively pursued unless there are compelling safety reasons to the contrary. In a world without substantial resource constraints, that might be the case. But in the real world of limited resources, we need to make informed choices. Our reports, and major reports like the IAASTD, are part of a growing body of evidence that supports an emphasis on agroecology, other agronomic and infrastructure improvements (e.g. more efficient irrigation and reducing waste) and conventional breeding, not GE

TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE: http://blog.ucsusa.org/a-less-thirsty-future-through-engineered-crops/