Nullius in Verba

The Straight Poop on GMO Labeling

During June, two items hit the news involving unsavory (to some) food options.

The first was a letter to the Record-Bee from a local organic grower taking me to task for my column, “Something Fishy This Way Comes.” The grower accused me of being against “choice.” She contended, if genetically modified (GM) food is not labeled, how can people choose not to eat it?

The second was a story about Japanese scientists developing a technique to make food from poop. You can imagine that a number of news outlets, including Fox News, were all over this story like stink on…well…you know what. According to the reports, human excrement is supposedly packed with protein and carbohydrates. All the Japanese scientists need do is combine poop with a “reaction enhancer,” then put it in a “magical machine…and artificial steak comes out the other end.”[i] Okaaaay, that sounds really appetizing.

Even though the second story is actually just a resilient urban legend,[ii] let’s run a thought experiment and pretend it is true. (“Thought experiment” sounds so much brainier than daydreaming, doesn’t it?). Let’s pretend a fast food chain has entered into an agreement with the nearby community sewage treatment plant to harness the culinary potential of its solid waste. Our (of course) fictitious fast food chain uses the magical Japanese machine and voila, s**t sandwiches, turd tacos, s**t burritos and even s**t on a stick.

Should the fast food’s products be labeled to say that they came directly out of someone’s colon? The argument to require labeling says yes. It goes something like this: We do not want to eat that stuff, and we have a representative government, so our government (federal, state, or local) should require such unappetizing food to be labeled for what it is.

You might think you want the source to be labeled, but I don’t think you do.

But, you may be saying, without labeling we might eat s**t! That’s true, but if you do not properly prepare organic produce, you also might eat s**it. According to the conservative think tank Center for Global Food Issues, using 1999 data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, while only one percent of the United States food supply is organic, it accounts for eight percent of food related disease in the U.S. primarily due to a deadly new strain of E. coli bacteria (O157:H7)”[iii] found in cow excrement which may be used as organic fertilizer.

At present, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires labeling for specific reasons. If a food is significantly different than its name, the food’s name must be changed to describe the difference. If it has a significantly different nutritional property from its counterpart, its label must reflect the difference.[iv] And, if a food has a potential safety issue, there must be a statement on the label describing the issue; such as if a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.[v]

The inconvenient truth is that GM products are as safe as any other food products; whether poop meat would be we might never know. The World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and food agencies in the United States and Europe say GM foods currently on the market pose no health risk.

The reasons for a government to require special labeling should be for safety issues, not lifestyle choices. In areas of simple choice, it is not the government’s responsibility to require labeling of the provenance of a food’s origin.

Let’s be clear: the eating of GM food is not a safety issue. GM food falls into the same category as Jewish Kosher or Moslem Sharia law food: that is, that labeling is important to the followers of that ethic. Producers of non-GM, just as producers of Kosher or Sharia food, are free to label their food as such. But, if you really feel that you want to avoid GM, you can eat organic food exclusively.

The call for labeling implies that GM food should be avoided because the food is “unnatural.” This is the “ick” factor that happens with new technology; a 1969 Harris poll found a majority of Americans believed in vitro fertilization (“test tube babies”) was “against God’s will.” In less than a decade, those against had dropped to 28 percent with 60 percent pro-IVF.[vi] Because beliefs evolve, the FDA requires labels on food to safeguard our health, not our beliefs. That is the straight poop.

Here is the bottom line: you are free to follow your beliefs; that is your choice.

[i] Japanese Scientists Create Meat From Poop – FoxNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/japanese-scientists-create-meat-from-poop/ (accessed July 17, 2011)

[ii] It appears to be one of those urban legends that crop up from time to time that sound crazy and, given our accelerating pace of technological advance, plausible at the same time. See: The mystery of the Japanese “poop burger” story. http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/06/23/japan_feces_meat_viral (accessed July 17, 2011)

[iii] Wallace Institute Got it Wrong. http://www.cgfi.org/1999/02/wallace-institute-got-it-wrong/

[iv] Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/foodlabelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm

[v] Guidance for Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether … (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.fda.gov/food/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidancedocuments/foodlabelingnutrition/ucm059098.htm

[vi] http://www.gallup.com/poll/8983/gallup-brain-birth-vitro-fertilization.aspx

Ugly Duckling In The Woods By William Keye

This is an op-ed piece that William Wade Keye* submitted to the Sacramento Bee at the beginning of July, in response to two articles (“State to assess Battle Creek logging activity and effect on salmon” and “Troubled waters of Battle Creek“) and an editorial (“Governor needs to keep pledge at Battle Creek”) they published highlighting purported environmental damage in the Battle Creek watershed. It is published here with his permission.

Recent Sacramento Bee articles pitting clearcut logging against salmon recovery efforts in the Battle Creek watershed whittle complex resource management issues down to a false, if convenient, dichotomy. Such eco-populism is understandable, but its assumptions need to be challenged.

To foresters, clearcutting is the dreaded “C word”. If there ever was a candidate to lose a sylvan popularity contest, that would be clearcutting. It’s ugly and widely viewed as environmentally destructive.

Even most loggers don’t like the look of a fresh clearcut, which typically appears as if a bomb just went off.

Clearcuts are disturbing. Hence, the “C word”.

Why would any landowner in their right mind choose this apparently abominable practice? Yes, I know the stock answer: greed, short-term profits and all that. Rape the land and leave nothing for the future.

I’m not going to argue that people who own working forests aren’t in it for the money, although I think there’s much more to it than that. But sure, they want to make the land pay.

Farmers don’t farm just for their health, or for somebody else’s aesthetic pleasure. They do it to live, to make the land pay.

Forest landowners are the same. Wood, like corn, soybeans or pork bellies, is a valuable commodity. We use forest products in almost countless ways, everyday. Our wood has to come from somewhere, which leads us to forest management and the pros and cons of various silvicultural practices.

The Bee articles critical of clearcutting contain implicit assumptions driven by aesthetics. Dominant is the view that more aesthetically pleasing practices, such as selection timber harvest, are preferable for fish habitat because they produce less sedimentation.

Evidence-based science does not uniformly back this intuitive belief. The reason is that even-age management (including clearcutting) impacts a given piece of forestland much less frequently than uneven-age systems (such as selection). Impacts are greater (KABOOM!) but less recurrent.

Forestry is a uniquely long term enterprise. If a clearcut is prescribed, the “bomb” goes off, seedlings are planted and the site may not be disturbed again for decades. Access roads and skid trails can be put to bed and remain so until the stand is ready to harvest again – typically in 50-80 years.

It is said that “nature abhors a vacuum”. Tree growth that follows successful (and legally required) reforestation after a clearcut illustrates this principle perfectly. Young trees reach for the sky, drinking up abundant sunlight and soil nutrients.

In contrast, the classic selection harvest requires the forest to be managed on a fairly continual basis. Periodic light harvests are generally spaced 10-15 years apart. During each entry, access roads and trails must be reopened – triggering new potential bursts of sediment delivery to aquatic systems.

Although counter-intuitive, it is possible that if even-age management were prohibited in the Battle Creek watershed, the cumulative effects as far as soil transport and sediment delivery would actually be greater. Uneven-age management would be considered more pleasing to the eye, but could mask impacts potentially more damaging to salmon recovery.

Finally, the Battle Creek articles did a disservice by pitting timber harvest against fish, a zero sum duality that ignores the many factors contributing to our difficulty in restoring anadromous salmonids. Those threats include dams and water diversions, in-stream habitat loss and degradation, polluted runoff, oceanic factors including predation, fishing, poaching – the list goes on.

I believe forestry belongs on that list, along with urbanization, agriculture, industry – all of us. It’s just too easy to single out clearcutting, ugly as it is.

Because nature really does abhor a vacuum, one really should visit a forest plantation a few years, or a few decades, after a clearcut “bomb” has gone off. It’s impossible to deny how impressive a vigorously growing young forest can be, how amazingly regenerative nature really is especially after a clearcut – which in some ways mimics the effect of a wildfire.

These kinds of images don’t seem to show up in the media when the “C Word” comes up.

And remember, regardless of the aesthetics of any given silvicultural system, we get to use the wood fiber that flows off a managed forest, creating homegrown wealth, jobs, tax receipts, energy and valuable products.

^*William Wade Keye is a California Registered Professional Forester and former Chair of the Northern California Society of American Foresters

TNC’s Chief Scientist Considers Conservation in the Real World

Stewart Brand of the Long Now Foundation. Image via Wikipedia

Stewart Brand provided a synopsis of Peter Kareiva’s talk given at the Long Now Foundation.

In general, environmentalist have earned the reputation of being “misanthropic, anti-technology, anti-growth, dogmatic, purist, zealous, exclusive pastoralists.”

Kareiva gave several examples of how that reputation was earned. In Green rhetoric, everything in nature is described as “fragile!”—rivers, forests, the whole planet. It’s manifestly untrue. America’s eastern forest lost two of its most dominant species—the american chestnut and the passenger pigeon—and never faltered. Bikini Atoll was vaporized in an H-bomb test that boiled the ocean. When National Geographic sent a research team there recently, they found 25% more coral than was ever there before. The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster last year caused dramatically less harm to salt marshes and fisheries than expected, apparently because ocean bacteria ate most of the 5 million barrels of oil.

The problem with the fragility illusion is that it encourages a misplaced purism, leaving no room for compromise or negotiation, and it leads to “fortress conservation”—the idea that the only way to protect “fragile” ecosystems is to exclude all people.

“When things are fragile, and you’re convinced that they’re fragile, it puts you in a position where you do not negotiate. Because, if you just give a little–because it’s fragile–it’ll be broken, like that.” – Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientist & Director of Science at The Nature Conservancy.

http://fora.tv/embedded_player

Sunday Funnies

Deep Optimism About Today and Tomorrow

Matt Ridley spoke in March 2011 at the Long Now FoundMatt Ridley spoke in March 2011 at the Long Now Foundation. Dr Ridley was the science editor for the Economist and has written several books. The latest is The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves..

Ridley makes compelling arguments that for me made sense, and for the first time I could see how economics, evolution, and ecology fit together. Economics is primarily the study of incentives. Ecology and evolution are the results of incentives.

This video is 100 minutes, and well worth the time. If you would prefer a podcast, the Long Now Foundation has them on iTunes.

http://fora.tv/embedded_player

Peter Kareiva “Conservation in the Real World”

Peter Kareiva, the chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy is well worth listening to. He recently gave a seminar at the Long Now Foundation. Stewart Brand, who hosts the Seminars About Long-term Thinking, noted this from Kareiva’s talk:

In Green rhetoric, everything in nature is described as “fragile!”—rivers, forests, the whole planet. It’s manifestly untrue. America’s eastern forest lost two of its most dominant species—the american chestnut and the passenger pigeon—and never faltered. Bikini Atoll was vaporized in an H-bomb test that boiled the ocean. When National Geographic sent a research team there recently, they found 25% more coral than was ever there before. The Deepwater Horizon oil disaster last year caused dramatically less harm to salt marshes and fisheries than expected, apparently because ocean bacteria ate most of the 5 million barrels of oil.

http://longnow.org/static/djlongnow_media/widgets/jw_player/player.swf

For Mice and Men, Dose Doth Make the Poison

Substance — Image by ky_olsen via Flickr

~~My latest Green Chain column in today’s Lake County Record-Bee:~~

Every day, I make my wife and myself a cup of coffee. Should I be arrested for spousal abuse? I am serving her a phenol-laced liquid, containing 826 volatile chemical substances, 16 of which are known by the state of California to cause cancer. One cup of this hot and astoundingly delicious pick-me-up contains at least 10 milligrams of known carcinogens including: caffeic acid, catechol, furfural, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide.[1]

In one cup, my wife and I take in more carcinogens than we would from one year’s worth of pesticide residue on fruits and vegetables. [2]

Let’s be clear: we are talking about food from plants, not just coffee; you can find naturally occurring carcinogenic chemicals in all kinds of food. Honey contains benzyl acetate. Orange juice and black peppers harbor d-limonene. Brussels sprouts, cabbages, cauliflower, collard greens, and horseradishes contain allyl isothiocyanate. And neochlorogenic acid lurks in apples, apricots, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, cherries, coffee, kale, peaches, and pears. These are but a few; the list goes on. Whether the plant was grown without any synthetic pesticides or fertilizers is not the issue.

Just as some plants grow spines to hinder grazing, plants produce their own chemical pesticides, to combat predators and competitors. No human put them there. These natural pesticides help the plant ward off insects and animals and even other plants. That is why you will find chemicals such as allyl isothiocyanate and/or neochlorogenic acid in apples, apricots, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbages, cherries, coffee, collard greens, horseradishes, kale, peaches, and pears. The plants themselves developed the chemicals.

Researchers apply the Ames test to determine if a chemical has mutagenic (potentially cancer causing) properties. Developed in the 1970s, the Ames test doses bacteria, which reproduce rapidly, with the chemical being tested to see if mutations result. At that time scientists assumed only a small number of substances would cause cancer. Instead about half of the chemicals tested, whether man-made or natural, turn up positive as being rodent carcinogens. [3] So, Dr. Ames (the man who developed the cancer tests) notes we need to “rethink what we’re doing with animal cancer testing.”

“We’re eating natural pesticides,” Dr. Ames points out, “And we eat roughly 1,500 milligrams of them per day. We eat 0.09 milligrams of synthetic pesticide residues.” [4] In other words, each day we eat over 16,600 times more natural pesticide than synthetic.

Exposure to pesticides isn’t the same as toxicity because the toxicity of a substance depends on the amount. Even that chemical which our life needs, dihydrogen oxide (H2O, water), can be poisonous if you drink too much of it. As Paracelsus, the so-called father of toxicology, noted, “All things are poison, and nothing is without poison; only the dose permits something not to be poisonous.” [5] Or, as it’s paraphrased, “Dose makes the poison.”

About a month ago in the original Peet’s Coffeehouse in Berkeley, I stood behind a woman quizzing the barista if Peet’s used chemicals to produce its decaffeinated coffee. (Never mind that the Swiss Water Process uses water, a chemical composed of two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom.) The barista assured her the levels of the chemicals used were too low to be of concern (“Dose makes the poison”). I pointed out that coffee already has 16 chemicals known to be carcinogenic; why worry about the minuscule amount of synthetic ones. She frowned at me. I think her next purchase was to be a chemical-free chemistry set for her grandson. (You think I made that up? “Chemistry 60” with its “60 fun activities with no chemicals” costs $21.88 on Amazon.com [6]. Don’t the makers know that water is…oh never mind.)

The moral of this story is eating fruits and vegetables that have many of these chemicals is much healthier for you than avoiding them. The jury remains deadlocked on the coffee.

Footnotes:
[1] Ames, Bruce N., M Profet, AND Lois Swirsky Gold, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 87, pp. 7777-7781, October 1990, Medical Sciences, “Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)”

[2] Dr. Bruce Ames, Reason Magazine, Of Mice and Men (http://reason.com/archives/1994/11/01/of-mice-and-men/singlepage)

[3] Ames writes in Spiked.com, “The main rule in toxicology is that ‘the dose makes the poison‘. At some level, every chemical becomes toxic, but there are safe levels below that.

“In contrast to that rule, a scientific consensus evolved in the 1970s that we should treat carcinogens differently, that we should assume that even low doses might cause cancer, even though we lacked the methods for measuring carcinogenic effects at low levels. In large part, this assumption was based on the idea that mutagens – chemicals that cause changes in DNA – are carcinogens and that the risk of mutations was directly related to the number of mutagens introduced into a cell.

It was also assumed that:

1. only a small proportion of chemicals would have carcinogenic potential;

2. testing at a high dose would not produce a carcinogenic effect unique to the high dose; and

3. carcinogens were likely to be synthetic industrial chemicals.

It is time to take account of information indicating that all three assumptions are wrong.”

http://www.spiked-online.com/articles/0000000CA8AA.htm

[4] Ibid

[5] http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html

[6] http://www.amazon.com/Elenco-Electronics-Inc-EDU-7075-Chem/dp/B002MR05HM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1308866720&sr=8-1

California’s AB 88-something fishy this way comes

Humans have been messing with life-changing technology for millennia. For instance, fire allows humans to cook their food. Though our ancient ancestors didn’t know it, heating food changes the food’s molecular structure; cooking gelatinizes starch and denatures protein, making calories more accessible to the human body than raw food does. While no one would say that fire (or my cooking) is 100 per cent safe, yet it has proven to be immensely useful to us humans (fire, not my cooking).

About 10,000 years ago, after fire and cooking, came the new technology of agriculture. Instead of people going to the food supply, they started to domesticate animals and plants, and brought the food supply to where they were. Eventually, they bred animals and plants for their needs. In other words, they had started tinkering with the genetic makeup of their food supply.

In the 1970s, a new technology arrived that will once again transform our food: Genetic Engineering (GE), also called Genetic Modification (GM). Genes, recipes for reproduction from one living thing, could be introduced into another living thing without using traditional breeding methods. GE gives food producers new ways to meet the nutritional needs of the world.

A decade ago, the AquaBounty company inserted an ‘antifreeze’ gene from a large eel-like species and a growth hormone gene from a Chinook salmon into an Atlantic salmon. According to AquaBounty this genetically modified fish can grow to market size in half the time of a natural salmon.

GE has spooked some people and they have called on the Food and Drug Administration to require labeling of GE food.

According to the Food and Drug Administration, it requires labeling “If an issue exists for the food or a constituent of the food regarding how the food is used or consequences of its use, a statement must be made on the label to describe the issue. If a bioengineered food has a significantly different nutritional property, its label must reflect the difference. If a new food includes an allergen that consumers would not expect to be present based on the name of the food, the presence of that allergen must be disclosed on the label.”

A panel of scientists convened by the Food and Drug Administration to weigh in on the fish’s safety has said the fish is safe to eat.

Never mind that it is safe; as David Ropeik, the author of “How Risky Is It, Really?” writes in Psychology Today, “The perception of genetically modified food is like the perception of any risk: a combination of the facts and how those facts feel, a mix of reason and gut reaction…We’re more afraid of what we can’t detect ourselves, what we don’t understand, and what we’re exposed to involuntarily.” And Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), with a mix of gut reaction and facts has come to the rescue of all Californians by introducing Assembly Bill 88 (AB 88)-“The Consumer’s Right to Know Act.” Huffman disagrees with the FDA. He proposes labeling GE salmon to warn consumers because, “Without labeling, consumers may unknowingly purchase genetically engineered salmon in spite of lingering concerns.”

Assemblymember Huffman’s “lingering concerns” notwithstanding, scientists, the U.S. government, the European Union, and others have said that GE food is as safe as any other food product.

Biochemist Simon Easterbrook-Smith bluntly dismisses fears over GE food, “There is no difference between eating a tomato containing a GM protein from fish, for example and eating an unmodified tomato with a piece of fish – in both cases there will be a mixture of tomato and fish proteins in your gut. A protein may or may not be toxic but whether it is in a GM food is irrelevant to that question.”

Stewart Brand, author of the Whole Earth Catalog, says this about fearing GE, “I dare say the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we’ve been wrong about. We’ve starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our own practitioners a crucial tool. In defense of a bizarre idea of what is ‘natural’…We make ourselves look as conspicuously irrational as those who espouse ‘intelligent design’ or ban stem-cell research, and we teach that irrationality to the public and to decision makers.”

Farmed GE fish hold the promise of lessening the pressure on wild populations. Scaring people due to nebulous “lingering concerns” is a sideshow. How about fixing the broken California budget?

Now there is a real lingering concern.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have no financial interest in any agricultural or bioengineering company. Though, I do enjoy genetically modified foods, sold at reasonable prices, and purchased at local markets.

Weekend Postcard: Lake County, Clear Lake

What a gorgeous weekend in northern California. The temperature was around 67F (19C for our metric folks). The lilac are in bloom and Mount Konocti looked very photogenic. And, every road invited you to amble along and see what lay around the next bend.

How was the climate in your neck of the woods?

Forest Owners to EPA: Massachusetts made wrong choice

The National Alliance of Forest Owners (NAFO) recommended to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that they defer the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from biomass for three years. the EPA is considering regulating biomass energy the same as fossil fuels. David P. Tenny, President and CEO of NAFO, underscored NAFO’s desire for the EPA to conduct comprehensive reviews of the science and policy, “This week, Massachusetts issued proposed regulations that effectively shut the door on renewable biomass energy in that state. This appears to be what officials wanted when they initiated a study on biomass energy that limited the area and timeframe considered in a way that significantly skewed the outcome. The flawed study resulted in a flawed policy. EPA can learn from the unfortunate outcome in Massachusetts to put in place an even-handed review.”

Tenny noted that EPA’s review is more a question of policy than science, “The science is really a settled question – the cycle of biogenic carbon is biology 101. Carbon released from biomass energy is replaced in real time through continued forest growth without increasing overall carbon in the atmosphere. The question EPA must answer is how policy can best apply this science to meet our renewable energy needs and reduce unrecyclable fossil fuel carbon emissions. Unlike Massachusetts, we are hopeful that EPA will conduct a review of policy options free of arbitrary assumptions or parameters that skew well settled science.”

NAFO’s comments to the EPA provide answers with supporting science to the policy questions EPA must answer:

* Forest carbon is most accurately measured on a national scale over a continuous timeframe rather than applying arbitrary time and space limitations on carbon measurement

* Because forests remove more carbon from the atmosphere than they release through natural and human activities, biomass energy emissions don’t increase carbon in the atmosphere and should be excluded from GHG regulations for stationary sources

* EPA should not impose a regulatory “baseline” or “business-as-usual” requirement on forest carbon that would compel forest owners to continually increase the carbon stored in individual forest tracts.

Tenny reminded the EPA that NAFO, “stands ready to work with the Agency to establish a policy recognizing the full carbon and landscape benefits of forest biomass as an energy source.”

NAFO’s comments were submitted as part of the public comments for the proposed rule entitled, “Deferral for CO2 emissions from Bioenergy and Other Biogenic Sources under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Programs.” NAFO full comments on this rule and the Call for Information are available on their website.

Related articles