Transgenetics WILL be for the good

To contact us Click HERE
I am fascinated by genetic research and the GMO. I started my search, looking for some currently events to place a spotlight on this wonderful field. What I found, article after article, was a plethora of negative opinions, angry writers with mobs of supporters. None of them, however left me feeling any less supportive of genetic research. So I searched more, and found an article from the NY Times published on October 7th.

Modified-Salmon Fight Showcases Risks, Rewards of Engineering Wild Species

What I found was finally an unbiased report on GMOs.

It is clear that we Americans did not get off on the right foot addressing many agribusiness issues. GMOs are no different and I fully expect more adverse results from our eagerness to invent and make profit.
The FDA and USDA are making strides in the right direction. This article does cite that the FDA has launched a program to overhaul its biotech program. The USDAs biotech division has requested $5.8 million to assess environmental risks.

Within this lengthy article many fascinating issues are brought up, here is just a few:
-Creating a non-reproducing salmon may be harder than expected, carp have already shown the ability to overcome the current sterility measurements being used.
-Analysis on potential escaped salmon around Prince Edward Island and Panama has not been conducted.
-GM grass for golf courses, created to resist the weedkiller Roundup, has spread into the wild in Oregon.

It is clear that any support for genetic modification will result in many angry people. I am OK with people being angry, they should be. We are a corrupted country run by the rich who want to get richer. What we need is control of our country and its leaders, and not the extermination of genetic research.

To contact us Click HERE
While thinking about our recent discussions about hunger, obesity, and it's correlation with food deserts I found this article to be interesting...
The story talks about how instead of an ice cream struck, the city of Detroit, which has been considered one of the worst food deserts in the country, they have started a fresh produce truck that will help connect people to access to healthful foods.
Here's the story http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131000846

Green Grocer

To contact us Click HERE
I read an article detailing the architectural advances within a newly constructed LEED-Platinum Hannaford supermarket in Augusta, Maine. It is the first supermarket in our nation to gain such a certification through the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design program. Motion sensitive LED's, solar panels, a green roof, solar tubes, and waterless urinals are among the innovations to be found here. Together, they allow this Hannaford location to consume 50% less energy and 38% less water than a standard supermarket of the same size.

I wonder why only one such supermarket exists in our country. If we can build facilities that leave a smaller footprint, how does it make since to keep building stores that suck up twice as much energy? Do you think that Hannaford built this store for the savings or for the publicity? People simply don't realize how much effort goes directly to keeping our food cold and fresh while it's on the shelf. As the article states, half of a supermarket's electrical costs are from refrigeration. We can add this to the list of externalities that come with shopping at a supermarket. Still, the frugality of its operation does little to change the corn based, mono-culturally derived products that sit upon every shelf.

This being said, I live less than 30 minutes from this store, yet I have never set foot inside of it. In the case of a supermarket, people are inclined to shop at the most convenient location rather than one that might be slightly more efficiently operated. For this reason I will keep a watchful eye on this store and hope for it to be rewarded for its green efforts. Yet, I will smile as I watch, because the farmers' market consumes 100% less energy than any supermarket ever will.

"While Waring About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales"

To contact us Click HERE

An article called “While Warning About Fat, U.S. Pushes Cheese Sales” was recently published in the New York Times. The article outlines what the USDA has been doing to bolster the dairy industry while at the same time trying to fight obesity. The USDA has created an agency called Dairy Management which functions to promote the sales of milk and cheese products in the US in an attempt to help the struggling dairy farmer.

Dairy Management has greatly intensified the attempts that the government had previously making to help the dairy industry. There are direct parallels to what the government has being doing to help stabilize the prices of wheat. The problem that has appeared is in the form of conflicting interests. The USDA is both putting out information that is supposed to help people make healthy nutrition decisions and trying to sell more dairy. While there is a huge market for low fat milk, the cheeses and higher fat milks and yogurts are suffering greatly. This has led the USDA to partner with places like Domino’s pizza to help them advertise cheesier pizzas and in turn buy more pizza. The USDA also start a campaign saying that 3 servings of dairy per day will help people lose weight, this information is highly contested and not considered valid.

Something different that can be seen in this article is an issue of deskilling. Many people rely on governments and even magazines to tell them how to eat to maintain their health or lose weight. Some people lack nutritional knowledge to the point that they need to be told that soda is not good for you. The USDA in this case is manipulating their position of power as the purveyors of knowledge by sending out controversial information to sell a product that they profit from. How much responsibility should we place on the government to give us truthful information about our own health? And how surprised should we be when they misuse the power they’re handed?

Organic foods offers no additional health benefits:

To contact us Click HERE

I don’t know about you, but personally I am tired of having all of these people tell me what is healthy or not healthy for me, and what I should or should not eat. Currently, most of the pressure is coming from the organic foods industry. With the huge success of Whole Foods, and farmers markets springing up everywhere I was thinking whether or not there really was a significant health benefit to consuming organic foods. This led me on a search to find empirical evidence to justify one side or the other.

We all know what constitutes organic from non-organic: non GMO, organic fertilizer, no antibiotics, et cetera. But does any of that really affect the amount of health benefiting nutrients within the produce? According to a researcher of the subject Pia Knuthsen of the National Food Institute at the Technical University of Denmark, “organically grown foods do not have higher levels of healthful antioxidants and related substances known to fight cancer, heart disease and dementia.” This was the result of a two year experiment where they specifically targeted organic fertilizer (manure) and non-organic fertilizers on various vegetables. Clearly the organic fertilizers are not responsible for this health craze.

What about pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones in our foods, you ask? Well Carl Bartecchi, a medicinal specialist states in regards to this topic “there is no evidence for greater safety of organic foods.” In fact there has been more research on the effect of non-organic substances proving that they are benign to the foods, whereas the organic counterparts could very well have problems of their own.

In a last ditch effort some people say to eat organic foods because they taste better. Well taste is a subjective sense where not everybody has the same tastes and preferences. I feel that it is an unjustifiable advertisement to say that organically grown foods are “tastier”.

In all, the health aspect of organic foods to me seems like a way to mark up the price of a good without justification. Simply being able to place a USDA organic sticker on your product entitles you to make it more expensive, and for what reason. Somewhere along the line the word organic was associated with healthier and I know that I am not going to fall into a fad for the wrong reasons.