by
Anastasia Bodnar on 19 August 2010
We’ve discussed labeling many times at Biofortified, usually looking at things from a practical perspective, such as in the posts What’s in a label? and Labeling GMOs. I argue that anything that is scientifically proven to be a hazard should be a mandatory label. For example, a label that a product contains nuts is justified by severe allergic reactions, even though the additional label may add to the cost of a product for people who don’t have allergies. Any label that doesn’t have a proven hazard is simply a label of preference, so should not be mandatory. Instead, voluntary labels are appropriate. For example, producers may choose to label products as free from animal products if they think the cost of sourcing non-animal ingredients, testing, and labeling will be rewarded by additional purchases of their products by vegetarians and vegans. Non-vegetarians shouldn’t have to pay for a label is based on preference, not science.
Practical concerns are not the only reason to label or not label foods, however. Ethics definitely comes into play. Do people have a right to labels, such as labels that indicate a product contains ingredients derived from genetically modified organisms?
Continue reading…
by
David Tribe on 16 August 2010
From GMO Pundit.
French protesters destroy biotech grapevines – Taiwan News Online
Item via Associated Press
2010-08-15 11:48 PM
Associated Press are reporting that Protesters have destroyed vines of genetically modified grapes at a government research site in eastern France.
The item says that the security chief for the Haut-Rhin region, Jean-Christophe Bertrand said that 50 people were detained after the incident Sunday morning.
Government ministers for the environment, agriculture and research condemned the “intentional destruction” at the National Institute for Agronomic Research in Colmar.
Research on the biotech vines poses no risk to health or the environment, and was meant in part to study a virus that damages grapevines.
French environmental vandals have routinely destroyed fields of genetically modified crops.
This post was syndicated from GMO Pundit. You may comment below or on the original entry.
by
Karl Haro von Mogel on 14 August 2010
Friday afternoon, Anastasia and I were taking part in special conference call via Skype, which soon enough, you’ll get to listen in on. We were being interviewed for Science Cabaret on Air, produced by Jenny Nelson. We talked about misconceptions about genetic engineering, contradictions and conspiracy theories, and misleading non-peer-reviewed research. We also talked about what may be driving some of the anti-GE sentiments out there, and how that very underlying issue may soon instead drive acceptance. What could that be? Well, you’ll just have to listen to the interview!
Science Cabaret airs on WICB 91.7 fm, a community radio station in Ithaca NY, every Sunday evening from 7-7:30 pm Eastern time. That means that the interview we recorded on Friday will be broadcast tonight for those who are in the Ithaca area. Tune your old radio wave receiving devices to 91.7 fm, or if you are not in the area or are a grad student buried deep underground in the lab (as is common on Sunday evenings), you can listen to a live stream of the show here.
If you miss the show, we’ll let you know when the podcast version is online.
We also talked about a new super-secret project that we haven’t yet announced here on the blog, as we’re finishing up some accompanying materials that will go along with it. Actually it shouldn’t be that secret as you can find it just by navigating. Maybe you have found it already? If you listen to the show you’ll know where to look. Our discussion also got me thinking about a couple issues which might make it into some blog posts soon. And I’m finally going to get some audio edited and put online to satiate everyone while you wait for the podcast of Science Cabaret on Air.
Also, Jenny works for the Durable Rust Resistance in Wheat project at Cornell, so maybe we’ll see a guest post about their work on stopping Ug99 here at Biofortified?
by
Joe Ballenger on 12 August 2010
Doesn't this corn earworm larva look delicious? Image courtesy of Cyanocorax from Wikipedia Commons.
In Part 1 of Pest Control, I discussed what a pest was and how they were divided into categories as well as how those categories overlap. Identifying pests and how they cause damage is only one part of the puzzle. There’s another part of the puzzle that comes along when you start treating the crops and when talking about pesticides, it’s one that’s the most frequently overlooked. Economics need to be taken into account when treating crops because, believe it or not, going easy on the pesticides can actually be beneficial to farmers.
The latest paradigm for pest control in agricultural situations is called ‘integrated pest management’, which I’ll refer to as IPM from here on out. It takes an economical approach to pest management by sampling pests, looking at how they damage crops and what numbers of a pest are sufficient to damage a set of crops. This is much better than randomly spraying pesticides at anything which looks like it might be eating your crops because it takes into account how much money you’ll spend and save on treatments. It also encourages a conservative use of pesticides which not only lessens a pest’s exposure to pesticides and selection pressure for pesticide resistance but also lowers the amount of pesticides sprayed in the field. Although not all farmers use IPM (although most figures I see are well over 50%), it’s the best way to deal with pests because you know roughly how much money you’re saving by treating versus spraying randomly and you limit the amount of pesticides you spray on your fields.
Continue reading…
Toward a better agriculture… for everyone
A recent paper in PLoS concluded:
The paper was Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans (full text) by Christine Bahlai et al. Long story short, the research showed that some synthetic pesticides were more environmentally benign than some organic pesticides, showing that it’s inaccurate to say that organic pesticides are better for the environment. Sometimes they are, and sometimes they are not.
The paper itself is really great, deserving of its own post (see Organic pesticides aren’t necessarily more sustainable than synthetic by Colby Vorland), but I’d like to talk about the organic-conventional divide. Normally I don’t approve of thoughts in scientific journal articles that aren’t immediately related to the research, too often authors stray into questionable territory. But Christine’s thoughts here are immediately related to her findings, and her results may indicate that big changes are necessary in the way we think about farming.
Separating out “organic” as defined by the USDA may be beneficial in the short term for farmers that have transitioned to certified organic methods who can then charge a premium, but in the long term, the divide is a detriment to farmers, consumers, and the environment. If we really care about farming in a more environmentally friendly fashion, we need an entirely new system.
Continue reading…