The whole affair probably took a lot of planning, and the integration of twitter comments into the video webpage was impressive. This is the first time I have seen that kind of detail. It is especially good because even people who don’t twitter can see the discussion unfolding. The display of twitter comments behind the speakers was also a nice touch, however it was difficult to read them in the video – it was probably more for the physical audience at the event. But seeing as how Anastasia had two of her ‘tweets’ read aloud on the webcast, making both Frank and me jealous, it

The format got me thinking about how we might be able to do something like that on Biofortified. As a community (!) of people around the world, it would be exceedingly difficult to get a lot of people in one place – but if it was done online it could happen. Something to dream about doing someday!

I do have a nitpick about some of the questions asked of the panelists – the ‘Youtube’ questions. While participation on facebook and twitter was announced, I was surprised to see video questions included, and it was said on the webcast that they were ‘Youtube’ videos. However, there was no such announcement prior to the event. I received confirmation of this from Alex Rinkus. He said that they solicited questions from partner organizations and some questions were asked by random people on the street who were explained what the panel was about. But putting them on Youtube didn’t work out because the video quality degraded at each step of the way. That’s understandable, but the press release after the event said something different:

Participants were able to ask real-time questions through YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and e-mail.

Pre-recorded questions ≠ Real-time Youtube submissions. I don’t want to overemphasize this point, but I think it would have been better to just call them questions from the street or something. Maybe I just would have liked to send a video question – they had me googling frantically looking for this!

As for the panel discussion, there were a lot of good things talked about. As I have said before, I was already familiar with Nina Fedoroff and Robert Paarlberg. I was particularly impressed with some of Gale Buchanan’s comments and demeanor, and Mark Cantley said some good things about the UK. Calestous Juma added some good perspective on Africa and elsewhere.

I thought that the discussion was good, but I felt that it could have used more diversity of opinions and perspectives. There really weren’t any big disagreements over any particular issue or another. I think the panelists communicated their perspectives well, but it was very ‘on message’ and wasn’t an exploration of differences and confluences. One thing to consider is that if a group of people does not agree fully on everything then when they do agree the power of that agreement is much stronger. This isn’t to say that the panel should have included someone like Jeffrey Smith – that would be absurdly unproductive. And I know how hard it is to plan good discussion panels because I’ve had to do that myself on several occasions. But a wider and richer discussion could have been achieved.

One thing that I certainly liked seeing was the piece on Norman Borlaug that they played at the beginning. Not only do I think more people need to know about Borlaug’s contributions to the world, but it highlights a critical issue ignored in many discussions of the future of agriculture: There are soon going to be several billion more people on this planet and the Green Revolution helped safeguard the lives of just one billion.

Heh, just one billion!

As of 2008, the global population was estimated at 6,692,030,277. (Source: Google) In 2050 we may have 2.3 billion more mouths to feed, and to feed well. We must do this on less land and with less water and to have a lower impact on the environment. We must do this with healthier food and safer food. It must be done amidst climate changes and our diminishing ability to pump more previously-sequestered carbon into the atmosphere – for both peak-oil and greenhouse gas emission reasons. It will take more than 2.3 more Borlaugs, I’m afraid.

There are many people who argue against the need to produce more food. Yes, we can also work to improve equity and food distribution, however, that will not be enough to feed 50% more people. I was once talking to a wheat breeder and he quizzed me on how much wheat stores we had in the U.S. – I guessed a few months worth. The answer he gave me was 11 days. The recent food shortages in the past couple years due to weather has caused the public and the media to realize that although we may feel comfortable (in this country) at the present, that comfort could easily be upset. Any future plan for how to proceed must take these issues into account, and I daresay that we have not yet figured out how to do it.

And so in finality, however you may feel about genetic engineering and other aspects of farming, I think you can agree that the emphasis placed on this future need was not misplaced. We didn’t see many of the twitter-savvy anti-GE folks participating in the discussion during this webcast, but I hope that the magnitude of the world’s needs as communicated by the panel was not lost on them, because it certainly is higher in my consciousness still a couple weeks later.

This is the first conference of this type that I have gone to, although I have been to an organic show-and-tell shindig here at the UW, this conference will be new to me. From looking at the schedule, it seems that it is mostly oriented toward farmers, but there should be plenty for me to check out.

The first thing I will see when I get there is the seed swap, which will be a first for me. There is a possibility that I will be able to interview someone about seed saving and/or backyard breeding. Otherwise I’ll take a good look around and maybe get some comments from people.

Saturday will be an interesting day for me, though. At 8:30 in the morning, Charles Benbrook from The Organic Center will be giving a talk:

Telling the Story of Organic Food Health
Saturday I – 8:30am
More than raw data about the environmental impact of pesticides or the benefits of organic food, stories and illustrative examples provide an effective way to communicate about organic agriculture. The Organic Center’s Chuck Benbrook will share meaningful ways to provide a clear understanding of the consumer and environmental health benefits of organic farming.

Then, at 10:30 am, Margaret Mellon from the Union of Concerned Scientists will be giving a keynote address:

DR. MARGARET MELLON “Two Views of Food Safety: Organic Agriculture and Biotechnology”
Saturday, February 27th
Dr. Margaret Mellon directs the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. The program promotes a transition to sustainable agriculture and focuses on critically evaluating the use of biotechnology in plant and animal agriculture as well as assessing animal agriculture’s contribution to the rise of antibiotic-resistant disease. Trained as both a scientist and a lawyer, Mellon considers food safety through two lenses: organic agriculture and biotechnology. Exploring how people relate to food safety in these contexts as well as through scientific and legal perspectives, Mellon’s work considers how to put the issue of food safety into the context of the ongoing debates about the future of agriculture.

I have requested an interview with both Benbrook and Mellon, and as of today they both agreed. Their talks are back-to-back, however if I have to skip part of lunch to do it I will! I will be interviewing them by audio, and I will post the interviews to the blog. If there is something that you would like me to ask them, please let me know in the comments below, or send me a message through our contact form.

There is also another talk at 2 pm which I would like to catch.

GMOs and the Fight for Organic Integrity
Saturday II – 2:00pm
While evidence mounts to show that GMOs harm humans, fail to increase crop yields, and will contaminate organic crops, a new wave of GMOs is being introduced, threatening the ability of consumers to choose non-GMO foods. Join Center for Food Safety staff attorney Zelig Golden to learn about legal strategies to protect organic crops from contamination.

I wonder what he thinks about protecting the integrity of conventional white cotton from contamination by colorful organic cotton? Pollen flows both ways.

But one talk I am certainly looking forward to is this one!

Managing Nests for Native Bees
Saturday III – 4:00pm
Artificial nests can boost local populations of native pollinators, but they must be actively managed to avoid negative impacts on local bee populations. Join the Xerces Society’s Eric Mader for an overview of native bee biology, and guidance on how to construct and manage artificial nests for native pollinators in an ecologically sound manner.

Eric Mader is actually speaking in my building on Friday, but I will miss his seminar due to the conference, so it is great that he will be there because I’ve been meaning to build some artificial nests for bumblebees this year and I bet he will know what I need to do. This talk will be a great way to end the day before the 4-hour drive back to Madison.

“Monsanto’s first round of attackers said its seeds were evil. Now the charge is that Monsanto’s seeds are too good.”

Well, I just got word that Herper has another story in Forbes Magazine – apparently his conversations with Pam and I turned into a new story called Green Genes – and I daresay he picked a couple of good quotes from me. Naturally, Pam and Raoul were the stars:

Now Ronald, 49, and Adamchak, 55, have become proselytizers for the marriage of genetically modified foods and organic farming. Their goal: crops that limit the use of pesticides and fertilizers while delivering more food per acre planted. They wrote a book together, Tomorrow’s Table. An opinion piece she wrote for the Boston Globe won a 2009 National Association of Science Writers prize. They give lectures. They are leading a chorus of young scientists and forward thinkers who see genetic modification not as a threat to sustainable farming but as a new way to make it better. They are not fans of corporate agriculture but think genetically modified organisms represent a missed opportunity to make things better.

These true believers come as a flood of new gene crops approaches. The European Union estimates the number of GM traits in crops will quadruple to 120 by 2015. Only half will be made by for-profit companies. Stewart Brand, one of the founders of the back-to-the-land movement, has been arguing fiercely that environmentalists need to drop their anti-GM stance. So has Karl Haro von Mogel, a 27-year-old plant sciences graduate student at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, whose blog promotes the technology. “There’s so much stuff going on that nobody even knows about,” says Von Mogel. “There is this huge potential if we use the science to pursue those things that are possible.”

I think I need to check a magazine rack to make sure this is real…

Too bad it didn’t mention Biofortified by name! I’ve got to make the site look pretty, we may have company.

Wait I thought I was 28?

• Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff; Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and to the Administrator of USAID Rajiv Shah.  Author of “Mendel In The Kitchen” Bio here.
• Dr. Robert Paarlberg, Wellesley College.  He is the Betty Freyhof Johnson Class of 1944 Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University.  Author of:  Starved for Science:  How Biotechnology is Being Kept Out Of Africa. Bio here.
• Dr. Calestous Juma, Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Professor of the Practice of International Development. Director, Science, Technology, Globalization Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.  Bio here.
• Mark Cantley, former Advisory in the Directorate for Biotechnology, Agriculture and Food, of the Directorate-General for Research of the European Commission, and formerly head of the OECD’s Biotechnology Unit.  Bio here.
• Frank Sesno, moderator, Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at The George Washington University, Emmy-award winning journalist, and host and creator of Planet Forward, a ground-breaking web-to-television show seen on PBS.  Bio here.
• Dr. Gale Buchanan, CAST report lead author; College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, The University of Georgia, Tifton Campus; former USDA Under-Secretary for Research, Education and Economics. Bio here.

The webcast is sponsored by:

• CropLife International,
• Council on Agriculture Science and Technology, and
• Biotechnology Industry Organization

I know I will be watching this. I am familiar with Fedoroff and Paarlberg, but the other participants will be new to me. Frank will be following it on Twitter, and he tells me that anyone else using twitter can follow the discussion using the #agCAST hashtag (#agchat too), and you can also ask questions on the website here or in twitter by sending them to @CropLifeEvent. (Facebook too.) The event says that you have to register whether you are showing up in person in Washington D.C. or whether you watch it online. I sent an email to the organizers and I heard back that registration is not necessary for you to watch the webcast, and there will be a video available online after the event.

Whats neat about this is it is a live webcast that links viewers around the world who can discuss it together through social media, and even ask questions that may reach the panelists from 1000’s of miles away. “Town Hall 2.0″? I hope to see a lot of you joining in the discussion! Feel free to use the comments section of this post to talk about the webcast as it plays out.

*First time my adviser suggested a media distraction for me to check out! I know. Whoa.

One of the things that we discovered while kicking around my place of origin is that we could very easily keep talking about GE crops and related issues until our voices ran out. We covered a lot of ground and have since thought that it would be nice to share some of those thoughts in more ways than just through written paragraphs. We recorded a video conversation right after we got back to my folk’s place from Chez Panisse, which I should have edited pretty soon, for example, and then there’s also the interview for my radio show. But we would like to do more. What do y’all think about a Biofortified podcast?

Our idea is to record a conversation once a month to talk about recent issues, thoughts we’ve had, and we could also add interviews to it. For instance, the Executive Director of the Non-GMO Project, Megan Westgate, has already agreed to record an audio interview with me for the blog, and we could put that in there. I have enough recording equipment at home to be able to include up to three different locations in a recorded conversation: one phone line, one skype, and a couple local microphones. So we could also rotate through other blog contributors who might like to chat over the phone, and there are ways for readers/listeners to contribute audio quotes and questions which we could try down the road.

Would you listen to it? What would you like to hear on it? Chat about recent issues not covered on the blog, or find general topics to discuss?

What should we call it?

And what kind of music just says Biofortified all over it?

There are three weeks left to the month, I bet we could figure this out before the first episode at the beginning of March!

[Later edited to add image awesomeness]

A year and a half ago I did some shows to try and revive the program as a standalone podcast, but I realized that I needed to rework the format. Shortly after Pam Ronald and Raoul Adamchak’s book Tomorrow’s Table came out, I recorded an interview with the both of them. But as my revival effort was short-lived I don’t think it got very much attention. So what better than to breathe new life into the interview and broadcast it as my first interview on WSUM? And Tomorrow’s Table just came out in paperback, too, so if you haven’t yet checked out this book (my review here), you can get it from Biofortified’s amazon associate store and help support our blog in the process!

Click here to go to the site and listen to Episode 79. The interview starts at about 24:00 into the show. It was pre-recorded because the air date, January 25, was the day Anastasia and I had dinner with Michael Pollan. On that note, my guest for this week’s show (Feb 1) was Anastasia Bodnar herself, and we talked some more about the Pollan dinner date and about his new book, Food Rules. I’ll be sure to put up a link when that episode is online later this week. And when I know in advance about future interviews about genetic engineering, I might put out a call for some ideas for questions. Vandana Shiva is coming to Madison in March…

Whenever I cover something significant about plant genetics, or conduct a relevant interview I’ll be sure to post a link here on Biofortified. I could make the show mp3’s pop up and play on this blog, however, we have some plans for new media projects for Biofortified, and having my radio show pop up and play on the blog might lead to confusion as to which is the ‘official’ Biofortified stuff and which is not. This is a separate project of my own. But as for the plans we have for this blog, we will tell you more about this later this week!

I think I’m having some fun with transitions. Hey, at least I didn’t do any star fades! (You aren’t safe from them, though)

Golden Gate from Aquatic Park

We coordinated our flights from Wisconsin and Iowa to meet up at about Noon on Saturday the 23rd, giving us ample time to hang out and zoom around the Bay Area before the big dinner. We stayed at my folks’ place in Petaluma, so it was very convenient that Michael happens to live near to where I grew up! They were happy to host, and to use us as an excuse to go eat Thai food!

First of all, it was great to spend the weekend hanging out with Anastasia (and Frank). Over the last couple of years, while joining forces to write about plant genetics, we have not only become good friends but also research collaborators. It makes me wonder if science blogging should join the list of suggested activities for professional development at graduate school? I’m serious.

Whether we were sitting in a restaurant by Aquatic Park, checking out the Japanese tea gardens and botanical gardens at Golden Gate Park, or driving all around we discussed a million and a half issues related to what we talk about on the blog. And we realized things that we didn’t think of before, all of which should hopefully make it into some blog posts soon. For example, why is there no mention of the afore-mentioned Greenpeace-funded study on Greenpeace’s website? Very odd.

PZ talking about biological complexity

And thanks to prodding from my sister and from Frank, we zoomed down to Cupertino to meet up with PZ Myers who was a big driving force behind the contest victory that got us here. It was a busy weekend yet relaxing as well. My one regret is that we missed being able to meet up with James on Monday to have a blogging powwow. It was really weird as the time seemed to go faster and faster as it got closer to the 6 pm dinnertime. The next three hours, though, seemed to last a long time – which was perfect.

Michael helped us decide what to order, and his familiarity with the restaurant’s fare really helped. Chez Panisse sources its food from the surrounding area, from huckleberries to citrus, mushrooms and lamb from Sacramento to Petaluma and in-between. To ‘cap’ the experience Anastasia had with her fungiferous pizzetta, mushroom hunter Anthony Tassinello (from The Omnivore’s Dilemma) happened to stop by and say hi.

It has been three days and I am still struggling to recall everything that was discussed. It would take hours to write (and read) everything that we can recall, so a summary of highlights will have to do. We began with thanking him for being willing to meet with both of us, and he started asking us questions. Lots of them.

He asked us about our research, backgrounds, and future goals. I had just rehearsed my ‘career update’ speech earlier with my parents so that was easy enough. Anastasia talked about how her plant genetics and sustainable ag curriculum allows her to bridge some gaps. Michael talked about his beginnings in journalism before he turned to writing about food. Then the conversation turned to some of the things that gave us unique perspectives on food. Although we needed to have some things on the dinner menu defined, I think we got food cred for pointing out that we are both CSA members – myself trading honeybee pollination services for veggies.

We had an opportunity to tell him about the contest and the little bit of hilarity that ensued on the day that our votes shot up astronomically, and how we were the independent site and our anti-GE opponents were the industry-controlled organization. He said that was a good story.

We also talked a lot about Monsanto, how many companies there are that work on GE crops, and issues with patent law and the antitrust stuff that has been going on. Michael asked us if we had the resources of Monsanto, what kinds of things would we work on? Anastasia talked about solving specific problems, like flood tolerance in rice was addressed, and I waxed on about the genetic basis of the nutritional value of crops and how we could breed and engineer vegetables that taste good – that maybe we could get more out of. He seemed interested in hearing about the effect of Oxalate on Calcium bioavailability.

Biofortification was also discussed. We talked about how Golden Rice is getting closer to success, following a nutritional study published in 2009. I made sure to point out that the rice endosperm turned out to be a better place to absorb beta-carotene than it was assumed. Although we didn’t ask what his opinion of the Great Yellow Hope might be today, he did talk about Monsanto’s Omega-3 biofortified soybean oil. He said that these traits that benefit the consumer directly will change the debate and drive genetic engineering toward acceptance. Whether it changes his opinion, he didn’t reveal.

This we agreed with. Last semester, for my communications class I read just about every paper on genetic engineering communication there was, and came to the same conclusion that he then expressed – that the biotech companies over-estimate opposition to genetic engineering. I added that the anti-GE groups similarly over-estimate the support they have for their positions. Most people don’t care because it does not directly affect them, but when it does there will be a cultural collision. I remember imitating someone in a Whole Foods physically weighing their opposition to GE against their desire to consume Omega-3-containing fats.

The SF Botanical Gardens at wintertime

There was one piece of news that I knew he would want to hear about, and that was that recent research in Illinois that found that people would rather have a local genetically-engineered apple than a conventional apple from 2,000 miles away. As he advocates enhancing local ‘foodsheds’, the idea that genetic engineering could allow for fungus-resistant local apples for the Midwest and that people might prefer them to ‘gallon of gas’ apples from Washington state certainly ought to be intrigue him. I think it confirmed the complexity of the issue.

He also asked about our take on the Union of Concerned Scientists’ report, Failure to Yield, and we made sure to mention that for a report by a group critical of GE, it did estimate an increase in yield for Bt corn. It also left out information about tests of intrinsic yield-enhanced soybeans developed at Mendel Biotechnology, half an hour south of where we were eating.

A big tree given the Bonzai treatment at the Japanese Tea Gardens

We also asked him about whether he feels his fame and the attention he gets keeps him from being able to do new research, and if people avoid disagreeing with him (except for the crazies). He said that he has to send others to find things out for him, and that he does get the chance to debate people.

I also asked him a question for my wife Ariela, who is studying to become a dietitian. In his recent writings on food, he tells people to ignore the ‘experts’, yet, she is studying to become an expert herself. His response was that there’s room for nutrition to focus on recommending foods rather than nutrients. But if you read his books, he often supports the healthful qualities of those foods on the presence of those nutrients… a contradiction that we did not explore that night. Perhaps another time.

Michael asked a lot more questions of us than we of him, and I’m glad that it was that way and not the other way around. It was his chance to learn about us, our blog, and how we want to affect the debate over genetic engineering. We made sure to talk about our mascot, Frank N. Foode, and how he helps us connect everything together with a story. As for whether Michael would be willing to do something with us for the blog, such as a Q/A or other thing in the future, there may come a time when that will be possible. Indeed, not to reveal too much about his future plans, he might be talking more about this stuff before too long!

Neat shrubs at the Tea Gardens

After getting together for a group picture at Chez Panisse, I handed Michael Pollan a jar of honey from my CSA-fed bees, and we said goodbye. He said to keep in touch, and asked for the feed URLs for this blog, the blogs of our authors, and even PZ Myers’ blog that supported us. We hope we made a good impression, and that he finds Biofortified useful for following the discussion about GE crops in the years to come.

Anastasia and I returned to my parent’s house to be summarily debriefed by them and we recorded a video discussion of the evening. It will be posted fairly soon. It was a great dinner and discussion and we both noted that it seemed longer than three hours, and even though we paid more attention to talking than eating, we didn’t feel stuffed. All in all, satiating on multiple levels. Then it was early the next morning to fly back to our Midwest locations.

I know I have missed a few things, but I tried to cover what stuck out and hopefully Anastasia will help me remember the important things I may have missed. But there is one thing I have not forgotten but I have not yet told you. Michael took to Frank very well, and made him an offer he simply could not refuse. I’m still blown away, three days later. I’ve been freaking out people in my building since I got back telling them about this, but I’m afraid what happened at the close of the meal only Frank can tell you. Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion!

Our lunch date with Michael has been moved to dinner, and given that we will be leaving early Tuesday morning to return to the Midwest, that doesn’t leave much time for reflection. We’ll see what we can do while we are still in the same place, but there will certainly be much to talk about on the blog post-Chez Panisse.