Details on the Dirty Dozen

As you may already know, the Environmental Working Group is a 501(c)(3) NGO with the goal of protecting “kids from toxic chemicals in our food, water, air and the products we use every day”. One of their major efforts is the yearly Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides™.

EWG gives many many reasons why they think you should use the guide, specifying that you (the consumer) should eat organic or at least choose the Clean 15™ over the  Dirty Dozen™:

The 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables (the “Dirty Dozen”) are contaminated with an average of 10 different pesticides, with many tainting more than one type of produce. In contrast, the “Clean 15,” the 15 least contaminated fruits and vegetables, contain an average of less than 2. Eating organic food lowers pesticide body burdens as well. Research shows that concentrations of pesticides in children’s bodies peak during seasons that they eat the most produce, but fall to below detectable levels in just 5 days when they eat organic food.

The list of reasons has a lot of scary facts about how many pesticides detected on food, just how “polluted” our bodies are from the things we eat, and explains how our government barely regulates pesticides. Near the bottom, EWG lets us know that despite the scary facts that the need to eat fresh produce outweighs any risk from pesticide residues. They also remind consumers of the importance of eating fresh produce on their FAQ page. Unfortunately, I’m not sure if anyone gets to that part, considering that media coverage of the Shopper’s Guide rarely mentions it, instead focusing on the scary facts (as in ‘Dirty dozen’ produce carries more pesticide residue, group says on CNN Health, which dismisses the silly government for thinking that small amounts of pesticides won’t hurt us).

The truth is, pesticides are scary. As EWG’s Amy Rosenthal says, “Pesticides are designed to kill things.”

The devil, as always, is in the details.

Continue reading…

Open House!

Hi all, Frank N. Foode here. Well while Anastasia and Karl are out pollinating corn each day, I thought I would take the reins of the blog a little bit and tell you about some of my recent adventures. Just a couple weeks ago I went to an open house for the American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA). So the ASA/CSSA/SSSA open house, where they showed off their new building in Madison, Wisconsin. But all those S’s are a Stomata-full for a C4 plant like myself, so I’ll stick with calling them the Science Societies.

Science Societies Building

Here’s the outside of the building, so why don’t you head on inside to the whole photo album to see what I saw and meet who I met!

Genetically Modified Foods Could Be A Solution To The Effects Of Climate Change

Earth is a sustainable planet that produces life, shelter, and sustenance to billions of its inhabitants, but the climate of this planet is changing and with that we must also change. To continue to reap the benefits of the planet’s nourishment we must figure out ways and solutions to produce food that is capable of braving the storm of climate change. Many solutions have presented themselves, but one stands out in front of the others as a potential fix to the food affected by climate change issue. That solution would be crops that are genetically modified.

Genetically modified foods or crops are plants created using the latest technology in microbiology and agricultural science. Much in the same way that certain animals are bred to carry on specific characteristics, genetically modified foods and crops are created to enhance certain traits that make them modified to certain areas, constructs, and situations. For example, many advantages of genetically modified food is that they can be made to be pest resistant, herbicide tolerant, disease resistant, extra nutritious, and most importantly can stand up to effects caused from climate change. This is pertinent to the global warming discussion because by creating crops that can protect Mother Nature from Mother Nature we can operate, produce, and consume food that can outlast any change in climate.

Since 1996, there has been a rapid growth in genetically engineered crops in the United States (with some crops like soybeans growing going from under 10 percent of acres used to over 90 in a 12 year span). This growth can be connected to organizations and companies investing in genetically modified crops as the future of food production and consumption. For example, US biotech companies like Monsanto have begun testing water efficient and drought tolerant engineered crops that can survive and continue to be produced in case of drought or flood cause from climate change. Even humanitarian organizations like the Clinton Global Initiative, organized by close personal aide to Former President Clinton, Doug Band, are working with agricultural research centers like the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) to produce flood resistant rice crops that will help protect small rice producing villages that are effected by climate change produced flooding.

Sure, genetically modified foods do have their detractors who argue that the chemically altered food isn’t safe and hurts biodiversity, but the positives outweigh the negatives. Genetically modified foods are a clear solution to the effects of climate change and can help keep food production steady in an unsteady climate.

Jack Lundee is a follower of all things green and progressive. With a degree in creative writing, and a strong involvement in the green blogosphere, Jack has been producing and editing his own content concerning things like climate change, carbon emissions, green infrastructure, green space, eco-consciousness, and so on and so forth.

Field season

Field season is upon us, and the tassels are hot and heavy. Don’t worry, readers of Biofortified, there will be more posts to come, once Karl and Anastasia come back from pollinating the next generation. I’ve already been pollinated so I get to relax.

In the meantime, check out the great post Breeding, Biotech and Bulls from our newest contributor, Matt.

Breeding, Biotech and Bulls

I’ve been meaning to tell this story for some time. It’s a good example of how not all biotechnology is genetic engineering.

Traditional Breeding

In trad breeding, the breeder/gardener simply crosses two parents that show great (and complementary) traits, grows up the offspring, selects the best and repeats. It’s effective, slow, labor intensive and limited by the perception of the breeder. Most traits are also very heavily impacted by the environment, so each new genotype must be grown in multiple locations +/or multiple years to make sure the recorded phenotype is due to the genetics (not the environment) of the individual. Most of our crops were domesticated and refined this way (quite a success!). Modern breeding has additionally been refined by the development of various statistical techniques and crossing schemes that make the whole process more efficient.

Continue reading…