Karl Haro von Mogel « Biofortified

2012: The year we make news

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 25 January 2012

The last three years have been fun and exciting for us here at Biofortified. Even more so the last three weeks – as we have raised almost $2,500 in personal donations (and blog schwag purchases) to keep the blog going and expand our projects into new areas. I have thanked all of our donors personally, and taking it all together, I can’t sufficiently express in words how thankful I am that so many people have been willing to support us, and for so much. If you thought we were wildly happy back when we won the Changemakers contest in 2009, we’re so much more excited now!

We have some ambitious goals ahead of us, from art to videos, tax-exempt status and more, but there is one more thing that I think we should strive for in the coming year – making the news. We are indexed by Google News, so in that sense we are making news as we report and comment on what goes on in the world. But what I mean is making a big enough impact in the world that other news organizations start reporting on us. The more reaching out we can do, the more people may come here and exchange ideas, contribute articles, and learn about science. I know that we have a good following amongst scientists, and it would be great if we could bring more people into the discussion.

Diane Rehm Show on GE labeling

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 3 January 2012

This morning on Tuesday, from 11 to noon EST, the Diane Rehm show on NPR will be discussing the issue of GE labeling, and I encourage you to tune in, and call in as well. Here is the show listing:

Environmental Outlook: Labels for Genetically Modified Foods

In 1992 the FDA ruled against requiring labels for genetically engineered foods. Join us for a panel discussion on the rationale for that decision and why some are urging the FDA to reconsider its stance.

Thomas Redick: Global Environmental Ethics Counsel

Gardiner Harris: Science reporter for The New York Times and author of the mystery novel “Hazard.”

Gary Hirshberg: President, Stonyfield Farm, Inc.

The development of the roster of guests was rather interesting, and bears mentioning. It has gone through numerous rounds of change. Initially, Val Giddings, President of Prometheus Agricultural Biotech, was going to be on the show, and then they also decided to add Doug Gurian-Sherman from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Then they switched to inviting our own Pam Ronald from UC Davis, and for a brief time period her name was also on the website. I heard from Pam last night that they decided that they did not want to have a science section on the show, and canceled that part of it.

Help Biofortified raise $2012 for 2012!

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 29 December 2011

Biofortified has recently reached three years of age, and we’ve had a lot of fun blogging about plant genetics in this time. We’ve talked about genetic engineering, plant breeding, organic agriculture, legal and social issues, food, and general science. Everyone has been learning new things, and sharing what they know, and discussion has been better than ever before. We even had one discussion pass 500 comments! We’re looking forward to doing a lot more of this, and including more people and perspectives in these discussions. But as we approach the end of the year, we have come to realize that we need to raise money to keep doing what we do, and especially if we plan to do more.

Money Matters

In 2009, due to an outpouring of support from the science blogging community and from our readers for what we’re trying to do, we won a contest that provided our blog with a $1,500 grant that helped us revamp the site, pay for hosting and purchase prizes to build a community of readers, and get some more diverse content on the blog. Now, after two years our grant is running out and we are going to need more funds to continue to keep our blog community going strong, and expand it with some more projects.

Will cover crops feed the world?

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 29 November 2011

A week before Thanksgiving, Tom Philpott wrote a blog post for Mother Jones about organic agricultural research, saying Yet Again, Organic Ag Proves Just as Productive as Chemical Ag. He was discussing a pamphlet (PDF) from Iowa State University’s Long-Term Agroecological Research (LTAR) Experiment, which compared yields and profitability of a “conventional” corn-soy cropping scheme with three different organic cropping schemes that rotated in oats, alfalfa, and/or wheat and red clover. What is otherwise promising research into crop rotations and management, however, was proof in Tom Philpott’s mind that Norman Borlaug, in particular, didn’t know what he was talking about when he opined on the limits of organic agriculture.

I responded that contrary to such lofty conclusions, a combination of missing details, shortened quotes, and silver-bullet single-solution thinking was at play. The ensuing discussion was heard around the food blogosphere with Michael Pollan tweeting for people not to miss reading our exchange, and Mark Bittman advertising it as well. I would like to continue and expand the discussion here, and bring up some things that have been glossed over and forgotten in this discussion.

How much Nitrogen?

The main thrust of our disagreement was over the issue of the source of nitrogen for growing crops that are going to feed the world. Tom quoted Norman Borlaug as saying that organic would not be able to feed the world, and tried to address it with the ISU brochure. But as I pointed out, Tom cut off the quote, avoiding a key phrase that indicates he is talking about nitrogen production. Here is the full quote:

That’s ridiculous. This shouldn’t even be a debate. Even if you could use all the organic material that you have–the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues–and get them back on the soil, you couldn’t feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests. At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There’s a lot of nonsense going on here.

This key phrase underscores the perennial problem of switching from fertilizers to an organic-only approach. The first question is where you are going to get the nitrogen that plants need to grow?

GE Survey: More believe safe than not, most undecided

by Karl Haro von Mogel on 22 November 2011

In 2010, Thompson Reuters released a survey* (PDF) of public attitudes toward genetically engineered food in the US. They had several significant findings, some of which should be fairly obvious, but some are real eye-openers. The questions were straight-forward and the raw data was posted online, but there was a distinct lack of visual representations of these results. I thought we could all use a good look at some simple graphs that demonstrate facts that many studies have shown consistently over time – that there are more people who believe that GE crops are safe than not, while most people are still undecided. It also showed that most people say they would eat GE plant-based foods that are currently on the market.

Question number one asked people to self-report their understanding of GE food. While self-reporting has its own problems (Like people who say they completely understand GE foods yet don’t really know anything about them), it does provide some information about how aware different groups are about GE. The survey reports that 65% of people are aware that some foods in the store are genetically engineered, and high-income and highly-educated people are up in the 80s. As for the understanding of the concepts, check out these results: