Nullius in Verba

Latest Organic Study: More confirmation bias. Less filling.

Recently, a group of researchers announced their findings ahead of their report on the nutrition of organically produced food to be published in the British Journal of Nutrition.

The study is titled “Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” and, according to Charles Benbrook of Washington State University and one of the meta-analysis study’s authors, was “funded primarily by the European Commission’s science and technology program.”

The study also acknowledged Sheepdrove Trust “for providing financial and technical support. The Sheepdrove Trust supports independent R&D underpinning the development of organic and sustainable farming and food systems.” The authors are quick to point out, “Financial support was provided by the Trust without conditions, and the Trust had no influence on the design and management of the research project and the preparation of publications from the project.”

Since, with the exception of some minerals (e.g. salt), everything we eat is an organic compound, “organic” means something else in this context. It means that “natural” methods only were used to grow the crop or animal.

Some Background on “Organic” agriculture

In the early 20th century (with the introduction of synthetic chemicals and the Haber-Bosch process for making ammonia) the methods used to grow the food and fiber became a concern to some. The organic movement pushed back against the incorporation of these unnatural synthetic elements and procedures into agriculture, as though creating food for our needs was completely natural. Agriculture is the domesticating of the labor of plants and animals to provide food and fiber for us; humankind has used and modified agriculture for its own purposes for 10,000 years.

Only in the past 25 years, have we in the United States codified the difference in the growing methods between organic and conventional. In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Organic Foods Production Act creating the National Organic Program (NOP). This act placed the Department of Agriculture (USDA) in charge of administrating the program and naming the 15 members of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), who were to “assist in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production” and advise the Secretary of Agriculture on implementing the program.

It is the NOSB, in the United States, who set the standards for what can be labelled USDA Certified Organic. Different countries have different standards yet they generally follow similar production requirements as the U.S. for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping. In all cases the avoidance of synthetic chemicals for any reason is paramount. Organic rules allow seed created through chemical or atomic mutation, but prohibit any anything created by transgenic breeding.

“The key principles and practices of organic food production,” explain Diane Bourn and John Prescott, “aim to encourage and enhance biological cycles within the farming system to maintain and increase long-term fertility of soils, to minimize all forms of pollution, to avoid the use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, to maintain genetic diversity of the production system, to consider the wider social and ecological impact of the food production and processing system, and to produce food of high quality in sufficient quantity.” Those are noble and worthwhile goals that all farmers would no doubt ascribe to. Michael Pollan, author of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, proclaims organic food production to be sustainable and better for the soil, with yields comparable to conventional farming, and forgoing industrial fertilizers and pesticides means less pollution. Conversely, according to Pollan in 2008, conventional agriculture’s more intensive production means more pollution, “when we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.”

Organic versus Conventionally Raised Nutritive Value

USDA certification was not meant to connote that organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, only that it has met the paperwork and production standards. “However,” Professor Bruce Chassy and his co-authors note, “organic definitions are not always accurately portrayed by marketers or correctly perceived by consumers.” Some people even believe organically grown food has Mystical Properties.

As an example, numerous websites promoting alternative medicine and conspiracy theories, including NaturalNews.com, quote Joel Salatin, founder of Polyface Farm as saying, “If you think organic food is expensive, have you priced cancer lately?” Why eating organic food didn’t protect Atusa the queen of Persia in 440 BCE (it is thought that her Greek slave may have cut off her diseased breast to remove the cancerous lump)from the first recorded case of cancer is left unanswered. There were earlier cases as the fossil records show, Herodotus is the first to record it.

For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds ‘no nutritional benefits of organic food.’”

The findings of the study appear to be quite similar to other reviews except that its emphasis and conclusion veers significantly from previous meta-analyses, such as a 2009 study titled, Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literatureby Dr. Alan Dangour, et. al. It said (italics in original paper):

“In analysis including all studies (independent of quality), no evidence of a difference in content was detected between organically and conventionally produced crops for the following nutrients and other substances: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, ?-carotene and sulphur. Significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found in some minerals (nitrogen higher in conventional crops; magnesium and zinc higher in organic crops), phytochemicals (phenolic compounds and flavonoids higher in organic crops) and sugars (higher in organic crops). In analysis restricted to satisfactory quality studies, significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found only in nitrogen content (higher in conventional crops), phosphorus (higher in organic crops) and titratable acidity (higher in organic crops).”

However Benbrook’s and his co-authors’ “view” is that the weight of evidence supports linkages between higher antioxidant intakes and improved health outcomes, despite inability to quantity such linkages or predict fully which factors drive them.” (Italics mine)

The more mainstream view follows the conclusions of Dangour’s team (italics in original):

“No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content. The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies. There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.”

This new study seems to be a matter of emphasis. Andrew Kniss, an Associate Professor, Weed Biology&Ecology at the University of Wyoming, suggested an alternate headline: “Organic food has less Vitamin E, Protein, and Fiber than conventional food, study finds.”

More Antioxidants. Less Filling.

More Antioxidants. Less Filling.

Last Friday a group of researchers announced their findings ahead of their report on the nutrition of organically produced food to be published in the British Journal of Nutrition. The study is titled “Higher antioxidant and lower cadmium concentrations and lower incidence of pesticide residues in organically grown crops: a systematic literature review and meta-analyses,” and, according to Charles Benbrook of Washington State University and one of the meta-analysis study’s authors, was “funded primarily by the European Commission’s science and technology program.” The study also acknowledged Sheepdrove Trust “for providing financial and technical support. The Sheepdrove Trust supports independent R&D underpinning the development of organic and sustainable farming and food systems.” The authors are quick to point out, “Financial support was provided by the Trust without conditions, and the Trust had no influence on the design and management of the research project and the preparation of publications from the project.”

Some Background on “Organic” agriculture
In the early 20th century (with the introduction of synthetic chemicals and the Haber-Bosch process for making ammonia) the methods used to grow the food and fiber became a concern to some. The organic movement pushed back against the incorporation of these unnatural synthetic elements and procedures into agriculture, as though creating food for our needs was completely natural. Agriculture is the domesticating of the labor of plants and animals to provide food and fiber for us; humankind has used and modified agriculture for its own purposes for 10,000 years.

Different countries have different standards yet they generally follow similar production requirements as the U.S. for growing, storage, processing, packaging and shipping. In all cases the avoidance of synthetic chemicals for any reason is paramount. Organic rules allow seed created through chemical or atomic mutation, but prohibit any anything created by transgenic breeding.

Organic versus Conventionally Raised Nutritive Value
USDA certification was not meant to connote that organic food is safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food, only that it has met the paperwork and production standards. “However,” Professor Bruce Chassy and his co-authors note, “organic definitions are not always accurately portrayed by marketers or correctly perceived by consumers.” Some people even believe organically grown food has Mystical Properties. As an example, numerous websites promoting alternative medicine and conspiracy theories, including NaturalNews.com, quote Joel Salatin, founder of Polyface Farm as saying, “If you think organic food is expensive, have you priced cancer lately?” Why eating organic food didn’t protect Atusa the queen of Persia in 440 BCE (it is thought that her Greek slave may have cut off her diseased breast to remove the cancerous lump)from the first recorded case of cancer is left unanswered. There were earlier cases as the fossil records show, Herodotus is the first to record it.

Despite all the hype, most studies have shown little to no difference in the food produced. According to the Mayo Clinic, “No conclusive evidence shows that organic food is more nutritious than is conventionally grown food. And the USDA — even though it certifies organic food — doesn’t claim that these products are safer or more nutritious.” The Mayo Clinic is not alone. Here is what the UK’s Food Standards Agency said in 2003, ”In our view the current scientific evidence does not show that organic food is any safer or more nutritious than conventionally produced food. Nor are we alone in this assessment. For instance, the French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA) has recently published a comprehensive 128-page review which concludes that there is no difference in terms of food safety and nutrition. Also, the Swedish National Food Administration’s recent research report finds ‘no nutritional benefits of organic food.’”

The findings of the study appear to be similar to other reviews such as a 2009 study titled, Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literatureby Dr. Alan Dangour, et. al. It said (italics in original paper):

“In analysis including all studies (independent of quality), no evidence of a difference in content was detected between organically and conventionally produced crops for the following nutrients and other substances: vitamin C, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, total soluble solids, titratable acidity, copper, iron, nitrates, manganese, ash, specific proteins, sodium, plant non-digestible carbohydrates, ?-carotene and sulphur. Significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found in some minerals (nitrogen higher in conventional crops; magnesium and zinc higher in organic crops), phytochemicals (phenolic compounds and flavonoids higher in organic crops) and sugars (higher in organic crops). In analysis restricted to satisfactory quality studies, significant differences in content between organically and conventionally produced crops were found only in nitrogen content (higher in conventional crops), phosphorus (higher in organic crops) and titratable acidity (higher in organic crops).”

While Benbrook’s and his co-authors’ “view is that the weight of evidence supports linkages between higher antioxidant intakes and improved health outcomes, despite inability to quantity such linkages or predict fully which factors drive them.” (Italics mine)

The more mainstream view follows the conclusions of Dangour’s team (italics in original):

“No evidence of a difference in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products was detected for the majority of nutrients assessed in this review suggesting that organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are broadly comparable in their nutrient content. The differences detected in content of nutrients and other substances between organically and conventionally produced crops and livestock products are biologically plausible and most likely relate to differences in crop or animal management, and soil quality. It should be noted that these conclusions relate to the evidence base currently available, which contains limitations in the design and in the comparability of studies. There is no good evidence that increased dietary intake, of the nutrients identified in this review to be present in larger amounts in organically than in conventionally produced crops and livestock products, would be of benefit to individuals consuming a normal varied diet, and it is therefore unlikely that these differences in nutrient content are relevant to consumer health.”

This new study seems to be a matter of emphasis. Andrew Kniss, an Associate Professor, Weed Biology & Ecology at the University of Wyoming, suggested an alternate headline: “Organic food has less Vitamin E, Protein, and Fiber than conventional food, study finds.”

Just Label It

Just stick an “Odd Priorities” label on the March 27 opinion piece printed in the Record-Bee, An Alternative Approach: Food labeling and GMO. You have to have a full belly to worry about labeling the technique used to make a food; especially a food that every science organization in the world agrees is safe. The Economist magazine wonders about these: Every year 3,100,000 children under the age 5 die of malnutrition, and the number of people who die from eating genetically engineered food is 0.^[1] In other words, more than 5 children under the age of 5 die of malnutrition every 1 minute of every 1 hour of every day, 365 days a year.

I did my best to ignore “An Alternative Approach: Food labeling and GMO^[2]”, however my wife left it out on our coffee table for me to read, and, well, I could not ignore it any longer. It botched too many facts. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”^[3] So let me respond to the “facts” in the opinion piece.

According to the piece: “Reliable scientific studies, for the most part, have given the A-OK on the safety of genetically-engineered foods (GE foods). However these studies are based on short-term findings.”

Just label that first sentence: “Close but no Cigar.” All reliable scientific studies have said that transgenically modified food is no riskier than any other identical food. For example GE corn is no riskier than non-GE corn, though there are studies which point to GE corn being safer.^[4]

Just label that second sentence about “short-term findings” as “Not Fact.” How about a paper published in the Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology titled “Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review”? The researchers found no sign of toxicity in long-term studies or in multigenerational studies. They say, “Effects of GM diets in all long-term and multigenerational studies were analyzed. No sign of toxicity in analyzed parameters has been found in long-term studies. No sign of toxicity in parameters has been found in multigenerational studies.”^[5]

According to the piece: “Both the First Lady and President Barack Obama have touted their support for GMO labeling.”

Just label this a “Minor Quibble.” Candidates say lots of things. I could find no evidence of President Obama touting support for labeling of genetically modified food. In 2007, candidate Obama said, “Here’s what I’ll do as president … We’ll let folks know if their food has been genetically modified, because Americans should know what they’re buying.”^[6] Organic consumer groups have called for President Obama to live up to that pledge he made as a candidate. While the Obamas may still like GM food to be labeled, since becoming President, both the President and First Lady have been silent on the issue.

According to the piece: “[President Obama] appointed three former high-ranking administrators from big-time biotech companies to the USDA and FDA: Roger Beachy, the former director at Monsanto, was made head of the USDA; Tom Vilsack, creator of Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership scored the position of commissioner of the USDA and Mike Taylor, former attorney and vice president of Monsanto, became the deputy commissioner of the FDA.”

Just label the above sentence: “Mostly Erroneous.”

Roger Beachy was not “made head” of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). From 2009 to 2011, he headed the National Institute of Food and Agriculture^[7] (NIFA), which is part of the USDA. Beachy has a PhD in biology, is the former president of the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center in St. Louis, Missouri and a professor at the Biology Department at Washington University in St. Louis, where he was a pioneer in the genetic engineering of plants.^[8]

Tom Vilsack heads the USDA. The U.S. Senate unanimously confirmed him as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture in 2009. And other than spending eleven years practicing law in his father-in-law’s law office, Vilsack has spent his career in politics. Creating the “Governors’ Biotechnology Partnership” is not quite being a ‘high-ranking administrator from a big-time biotech company.’^[9]

Mike Taylor is Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). He is, according to the FDA’s website, “A nationally recognized food safety expert, [who] has served in numerous high-level positions at FDA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), as a research professor in the academic community, and on several National Academy of Sciences expert committees studying food-related issues…Other positions held by Mr. Taylor include senior fellow, Resources for the Future; professor, School of Medicine, University of Maryland; partner, King & Spalding law firm;” and “vice president for public policy, Monsanto Company.”?^[10]

According to the piece: “…the FDA continues to ignore its responsibility to provide the public with appropriate information…I struggle to find any convincing reason why GE foods shouldn’t be labeled as such.”

Just label this a “Non-Starter.” The FDA cannot “ignore” a responsibility do not have. At present, the FDA’s mandate requires labeling for nutrition and safety—fear and the “ick” factor do not meet those criteria.

As to nutrition, which the FDA is responsible for, crops raised in different soils and microclimates have more nutritional differences[11][12] than GE food has from its non-GE counterpart.

As to safety, which the FDA is responsible for, even Gregory Jaffe of for the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says it is safe: “There is no reliable evidence that ingredients made from current GE crops pose any health risk whatsoever.”^[13] Lest you think CSPI is in Big Ag’s pocket, CSPI “has made a name for itself by tackling the food industry’s big guns…” You can look it up. Jaffe says this about labeling, “Consumers should know how their food is made and where it comes from. But as this is not a food safety or a nutritional issue—it’s not like allergens or trans fats—we don’t feel it should be mandated on labels that foods are produced with GM crops.”

^[1] http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/original-size/images/print-edition/20140510_USC830.png

^[2] DeAnda, L. An Alternative Approach: Food labeling and GMOs. http://www.record-bee.com/readersviews/ci_25431922/an-alternative-approach-food-labeling-and-gmos Accessed 11 June 2014

^[3] An American Original. Vanity Fair. October 6, 2010. http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2010/11/moynihan-letters-201011 Accessed 28 May 2014

^[4] Hellmich, R. L. & Hellmich, K. A. (2012) Use and Impact of Bt Maize. Nature Education Knowledge 3(10):4 http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/use-and-impact-of-bt-maize-46975413 Accessed 23 May 2014

^[5] Assessment of the health impact of GM plant diets in long-term and multigenerational animal feeding trials: A literature review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. Volume 50, Issues 3–4, March–April 2012, Pages 1134–114 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691511006399 Accessed 28 May 2014

^[6] http://www.politico.com/story/2014/01/barack-obama-gmo-labeling-102266.html

^[7] The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers federal grant programs for agricultural, environment and human health research, and education primarily at state universities, and by other approved partner institutions. It does not perform research, only funds research at the state and local levels. The NIFA, one of the newest agencies to be created in the Department of Agriculture, replaced the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, which was formed in 1994.

http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-agriculture/national-institute-of-food-and-agriculture-cooperative-state-research-education-and-extension-service?agencyid=7149

^[8] http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/04/beachy-leave-key-agriculture-research-post-washington

^[9] http://www.allgov.com/officials/vilsack-tom?officialid=28839

^[10] http://www.fda.gov/aboutfda/centersoffices/officeoffoods/ucm196721.htm

[11] Prosser, E. Nutritional Differences in Organic versus Conventional Foods: And the Winner Is… http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/08/11/nutritional-differences-in-organic-vs-conventional-foods-and-the-winner-is/ Accessed 23 August 2012

[12] Bourn, D. and J. Prescott. A Comparison of the Nutritional Value, Sensory Qualities, and Food Safety of Organically and Conventionally Produced Foods. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1):1–34 (2002)

^[13] CSPI: There are concerns about GMOs, but not around food safety. http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Regulation/CSPI-There-are-legitimate-concerns-about-GMOs-but-not-around-food-safety-and-labeling-would-be-misleading Accessed 3 July 2013

Whack a bee – Neonics edition

It’s time once again for everyone’s favorite game show: Environmental Whack-a-Mole! What Black & White Green scare do we have for scientific experts to bat down with nuanced arguments today, Johnny?

Johnny: “This time It’s Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) that’s in the news once again. Many greens want to ban a particular class of synthetic pesticide they say leads to CCD. CCD is a mysterious loss of most or all worker bees from the hive of the European honey bee (Apis mellifera), where only a small number of young workers and the queen remain, and, even more baffling, the ample food supplies left behind are not raided by pests for several weeks after the collapse.^[1]”

I see. Wasn’t CCD first discovered in, what, 2006?
Johnny: “Yes, indeedy. The first evidence for such disappearances goes back centuries.”

That’s longer ago than 2006.

“Wow, nothing gets by you does it Sherlock? Yes, ‘In Ireland, there was a great mortality of bees in 950,’ entomologist Joe Ballenger notes, ‘and again in 992 and 1443^[2].’ In 1853, Lorenzo Langstroth, the father of American beekeeping, described colonies that were found ‘to be utterly deserted. The comb was empty, and the only symptom of life was the poor queen herself.^[3]’ In 1868, an anonymous reporter told of abandoned hives with lots of honey still in them. In 1891 and 1896, many bees vanished or dwindled to tiny clusters with queens in May, hence the name: ‘May Disease.^[4]’ In 1903 an outbreak occurred in Cache Valley in Utah.^[5] The Isle of Wight in the United Kingdom saw three epidemics between 1905 and 1919, 90% of the honey bee colonies there died.^[6] In 1918 and 1919 there were occurrences in the United States.^[7] There were more mysterious bee disappearances in the 1960s in California, Louisiana, and Texas. Another in 1975 in Australia, Mexico, and 27 U.S. states.^[8] In 1995, Pennsylvania beekeepers lost 53% of their colonies.^[9]

“The term ‘Colony Collapse Disorder’ was coined and defined around 2007.”

And what brought it into the news again?

Johnny: “It seems Chensheng (Alex) Lu, an associate professor of environmental exposure biology at the Harvard School of Public Health, says he knows what causes CCD. In a May 9th^[10] news release he announced ‘that neonicotinoids are highly likely to be responsible for triggering CCD in honey bee hives that were healthy prior to the arrival of winter.’ Neonicotinoids, such as Imidacloprid and clothianidin, are insecticides that are commonly used to coat seeds and then taken up by the plant where it helps the plant guard against insect attack. By the way, the first commercially available neonicotinoid, Imidacloprid, was first widely used in the United States in 1994.”^[11]

A very long time after the ‘great mortality of bees’ in the 10th century.

“Wow, you have a mind like a steel sieve, don’t you?”

Well—

“Harvard’s media release goes on to say, ‘Experts have considered a number of possible causes, including pathogen infestation, beekeeping practices, and pesticide exposure. Recent findings, including a 2012 study by Lu and colleagues, suggest that CCD is related specifically to neonicotinoids, which may impair bees’ neurological functions.^[12]’ That is Lu thinks these types of pesticides might be hurting the honey bee’s nervous system, which includes its brain, which in turn may impair the ability to return to the hive or cause the bee to self-exile.”

Self-exile? What are these bees Romney supporters?

“Ha ha. I’ll laugh since you sign my paycheck.”

Moving along; what do the experts say?

Johnny: “As you might imagine, they have many nuanced arguments.”

Such as?

Johnny: “First, what Lu and his team produced wasn’t CCD.”

Well that seems a little picky.

“It’s a honking big deal if you say you reproduced CCD and didn’t. Scientists point out that the condition of the hives that Lu and his team produced doesn’t match the definition laid out by the USDA in 2007. You can’t say you reproduced it, if it doesn’t look like it. If it doesn’t quack like a duck, it’s not a duck.

“Second, the sample sizes were too small. They used only eighteen hives: six controls and two groups of six given two different neonicotinoid formulations. So if they had reproduced CCD symptoms in this case, the experiment would need a larger sampling to be statistically relevant.

“Most experts suspect CCD results from a number of factors that stress the colony. According to the literature, CCD is ‘strongly associated with hives that have been under stress from any of a number of known stressors….These include mites, bacteria, fungi, viruses, protozoa, and [yes] insecticides.^[13]’”

So it is probably safe to say CCD was here before neonicotinoids, it will bee here after.

“Puns. The lowest form of humor.”

What?

“Nothing.”

So what is to be done?

“As they say in the biz, ‘more research is needed.’ Until then people might consider what Randy Oliver of ScientificBeekeeping.com wrote, ‘As a beekeeper who makes his living from having healthy colonies of bees, I am acutely interested in the causes of colony morbidity and mortality. Without a doubt, pesticides can cause colony morbidity or mortality…The neonicotinoid class of insecticides are no exception, and I’ve detailed problems associated with them…Although I initially suspected that neonicotinoids may have been a likely cause of Colony Collapse, my extensive research does not support that hypothesis.’

“I asked Oliver about organic beekeepers, since neonicotinoids aren’t allowed in organic crops. In an email, he told me, ‘During the original CCD investigations around 2007, organic beekeepers got hit just as hard as others. In fact, the queen of organic beekeepers called me as the hives in her operation were crashing.’ He describes his operation as largely organic, ‘other than that I move my hives to almonds for a month each year. I tend to have relatively low losses…However, I know of many beekeepers who use conventional treatments and run their bees in conventional agriculture who also have a low loss rate….In general, those who keep varroa [mites] in check and maintain good nutrition have healthy bees.’”^[14]

I guess that while neonicotinoid pesticides may be a problem, banning them won’t stop Colony Collapse Disorder.

“That’s right. And your elementary school teachers said you couldn’t be taught….As H. L. Mencken said, ‘For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.’”

Footnotes:
[1] Source: Underwood, Robyn M. and Dennis vanEngelsdorp. Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen This Before?
[2] Ballenger, Joe. Colony Collapse Disorder: An Introduction http://www.biofortified.org/2013/03/colony-collapse-disorder-an-introduction/ accessed 18 May 2014

Oldroyd BP (2007) What’s Killing American Honey Bees? PLoS Biol 5(6): e168. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050168
[3] Nordhaus, Hannah An Environmental Journalist’s Lament http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-1/an-environmental-journalists-lament. 2011. Accessed March 30, 2013
[4] Underwood, Robyn M. and Dennis vanEngelsdorp. Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen This Before?
[5] Ballenger, Joe. Colony Collapse Disorder: An Introduction http://www.biofortified.org/2013/03/colony-collapse-disorder-an-introduction/ accessed 18 May 2014

Oldroyd BP (2007) What’s Killing American Honey Bees? PLoS Biol 5(6): e168. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050168
[6] Underwood, Robyn M. and Dennis vanEngelsdorp. Colony Collapse Disorder: Have We Seen This Before?
[7] Oldroyd BP (2007) What’s Killing American Honey Bees? PLoS Biol 5(6): e168. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050168
[8] Nordhaus, Hannah An Environmental Journalist’s Lament http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-issues/issue-1/an-environmental-journalists-lament. 2011. Accessed March 30, 2013
[9] Ballenger, Joe. Colony Collapse Disorder: An Introduction http://www.biofortified.org/2013/03/colony-collapse-disorder-an-introduction/ accessed 18 May 2014
[10] Dwyer, Marge. Study strengthens link between neonicotinoids and collapse of honey bee colonies http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/study-strengthens-link-between-neonicotinoids-and-collapse-of-honey-bee-colonies/ 2014. accessed May 18, 2014
[11] Staveley, Jane P., Sheryl A. Law, Anne Fairbrother, and Charles A. Menzie. A Causal Analysis of Observed Declines in Managed Honey Bees (Apis mellifera). Human and Ecological Risk Assessment, 20: 566–591, 2014 p583
[12] Dwyer, Marge. Study strengthens link between neonicotinoids and collapse of honey bee colonies http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/study-strengthens-link-between-neonicotinoids-and-collapse-of-honey-bee-colonies/ 2014. accessed May 18, 2014
[13] Honey Bee Colony Collapse Disorder: A Literature Review http://www.biofortified.org/2008/11/honey-bee-colony-collapse-disorder-a-literature-review/ accessed 16 May 2104
[14] Email correspondence with Randy Oliver. 16 May 2014.

Can the poor eat now?

More noise from Michael Pollan found here (and I have written on here). He suggests that the poor could get a more varied diet and avoid the effects of a vitamin poor diet (such as vitamin A deficiency) by planting “greens in pots around their houses…” That way, we would not need to employ Golden Rice.

In order to reduce vitamin A deficiency, Michael Pollan suggests “[We should] encourage [the poor] to plant squash or greens in pots around their houses or around the edges of fields.” Because, “Sometimes there’s a really boring way to achieve the same thing.”

Brilliant! Now why didn’t researchers think of that? Perhaps, because:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. – H. L. Mencken

Once again, let’s listen to Dr. Florence Wambugu:

You people in the developed world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?”

Golden rice now, everything else is noise.

Golden Rice grain in jar GN7_0475-22 — *Golden Rice in a jar with the Golden Rice plants in background. Photo credit: Part of the image collection of the* International Rice Research Institute (IRRI).

Please spare me the anti-biotech crowd’s Argumentum ad Monsantum (the “Appeal to Monsanto” argument) over Genetically Engineered (GE) foods. I’m speaking, of course, of the push back in the Lake County Record-Bee to my “Golden rice, golden opportunity” column. Golden Rice is a genetically engineered crop created by borrowing the carotene-making gene from corn and placing that gene into rice, which does not produce carotene (at least not in the parts of the rice plant that we eat). Our bodies convert carotene into vitamin A and then use that vitamin A in the development of bones and eyesight. Golden Rice will be given free of additional charges and free of restrictions to subsistence farmers, and can be replanted every year from saved harvests.

Still some people prefer to trust the ballroom-dancing teacher and Yogic flying instructor, Jeffrey Smith; Mike Adams, the self-proclaimed “Health Ranger”; Greenpeace; Vandana Shiva; the Organic Consumers Association; or Joseph Mercola over the word of the American Medical Association, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization or… well, you get the idea.

In the U.S. average lifespan has increased from 76 years in 1996 to nearly 80 years today, and globally, lifespans have increased from 66.4 to 71.0 years in the same time period.

I’m not surprised, findings published in JAMA Internal Medicine showed that 12% of Americans agreed with the statement: “The global dissemination of genetically modified foods by Monsanto, Inc. is part of a secret program, called Agenda 21, launched by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations to shrink the world’s population.” A whopping 37% agreed “The Food and Drug Administration is deliberately preventing the public from getting natural cures for cancer and other diseases because of pressure from drug companies,” and 12% agreed that “Public water fluoridation is really just a secret way for chemical companies to dump dangerous byproducts of phosphate mines into the environment.”

Agenda 21 not withstanding, everyone is living longer. In the U.S., where about 70 percent of the food in our supermarkets contains ingredients from genetically engineered crops, life expectancy has increased from 76 years in 1996 (when large-scale cultivation of GE crops took off) to nearly 80 years today, and global life expectancy has increased from 66.4 to 71.0 years in the same time period. As one wag wrote, “If we’re less healthy, we sure are coping with it more effectively.” And compared with Europe, which has virtually banned GE crops, there is no discernible difference in cancer rates or lifespans.

Meanwhile, there is a need for what Golden Rice can deliver: vitamin A. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 vitamin A-deficient children become blind every year, half of them dying within 12 months of losing their sight. “These are real deaths, real disability, real suffering, not the phantom fears… none of which have held up to objective scientific scrutiny,” risk-perception expert David Ropiek writes. Allowing Golden Rice to be eaten by populations prone to vitamin A Deficiency means that blindness could be prevented (it cannot be cured once it has happened). Less than a cup of cooked Golden Rice provides children 6 to 8-years-old with some 60% of their daily vitamin A needs, not 7 pounds as claimed in the letter to the editor.

Greenpeace, et alia throw up various smokescreens which boil down to suggesting that it is preferable to raise the needy’s standard of living and provide them with alternative diets and/or supplements: the “Let them eat kale” defense. Those might work, but if the poor could afford a more varied and fulfilling diet, don’t you think they would do so? Fortunately, we are becoming hip to anti-biotech ploys. “[I]ncreasingly the scientific community and journalists are becoming aware of the rhetorical two-steps and destructive strategies employed by organizations that are hostile to GMOs, while pretending that they cling to science,” Dr. Mary Mangan wrote. She has a PhD in Cell, Molecular, and Developmental Biology. Researcher at University of Florida, Dr. Kevin Folta challenges those who wish to stop Golden Rice and other bio-fortification, “If there are so many viable alternatives, what are ya’ll waiting for?…It is easy to stand against a technology with a full belly and 20/20 vision…Let’s give it away as intended and…Let it help people if it can.”

Agricultural economist, Alexander Stein who has written peer-reviewed papers on Golden Rice says that even under the pessimistic scenarios, “biofortification is extremely cost-effective.” Why? Golden Rice supplies vitamin A with every bowl. “[T]here is a fairly intuitive argument why biofortified crops, such as Golden Rice (or other crops that were developed using ‘conventional’ breeding), can be even more cost-effective than supplementation or fortification: Economies of scale. In the case of vitamin A supplementation all children in at-risk households need to receive two mega-doses of vitamin A per year, year after year. The cost of one supplement may only be cents, but distribution and monitoring costs need to be added, too. And these costs need to be incurred over and over and over again.”

In the four minutes it took you to read this, two, three or four children lost their sight due to Vitamin A Deficiency, and, in the same four minutes at least one child died. Everything else is noise.

For more information visit goldenrice.org or irri.org/golden-rice

Notes

^[1] Dunning, Brian. Argumentum ad Monsantium. 2012.

http://www.skepticblog.org/2012/11/08/argumentum-ad-monsantium/ Accessed 9 November 2012

^[2] Goodman, Glenn. Biotech Bull. Lake County Record-Bee.

http://www.record-bee.com/readersviews/ci_25326689/opinion-letter-editor-biotech-bull Accessed 31 March 2014

^[3] Benson, Norm. Golden rice, golden opportunity. Lake County Record-Bee.

http://www.record-bee.com/readersviews/ci_25319623/opinion-column-green-chain-golden-rice-golden-opportunity Accessed 31 March 2014

~~^[4] A. J. Stein email to author~~

^[5] “[Jeffrey] Smith’s background is limited to being a swing dance instructor, running for local office as a candidate with the Maharishi-linked Natural Law Party built around the powers of transcendental meditation and running marketing for a GMO testing company led by the Maharishi’s “raja for food purity, safety and health invincibility” responsible for the promotion of the Maharishi brand of “Vedic Organic” agriculture. Smith’s work is financially sponsored by a range of organic, natural product and alternative health companies who are better able to sell higher-priced products by fueling consumer fear and mistrust of well-regulated, more affordable products that may be produced using biotechnology or other conventional agriculture tools.”

http://www.24-7pressrelease.com/press-release/actual-gmo-experts-available-to-respond-to-activist-jeffrey-smiths-false-and-misleading-claims-373922.php Accessed 5 April 2014

^[6] Most ‘dangerous’ anti-science GMO critic? Meet Mike Adams–Conspiracy junkie runs alternative ‘health’ empire more influential than US government websites. Genetic Literacy Project

http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-articles/most-dangerous-anti-science-gmo-critic-meet-mike-adams-conspiracy-junkie-runs-alternative-health-empire-more-influential-than-us-government-websites/

^[7] ‘So, if introduced on a large scale, golden rice can exacerbate malnutrition and ultimately undermine food security.’ This statement by (Greenpeace, 2012: 3) is in strong contradiction to the reported impacts of vitamin A deficiency and the nutritional impacts of vitamin A enriched diets. More than 125 million children under five years of age suffer from vitamin A deficiency (VAD). Dietary VAD causes 250,000–500,000 children to go blind each year.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=6&fid=9136417&jid=EDE&volumeId=-1&issueId=-1&aid=9136416&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1355770X1300065X

^[8] Shiva tweeted after Mark Lynas’s Oxford speech that his saying that farmers should be free to use GMO crops was like giving rapists the freedom to rape.

http://www.marklynas.org/2013/04/time-to-call-out-the-anti-gmo-conspiracy-theory/

^[9] Further down in its press release, the Organic Consumers Association asserts: Recent studies have linked GMOs to human health issues, including kidney and liver failure, allergies and cancer.

Kloor, Keith. GMO Opponents Use Fear and Deception to Advance Their Cause – Collide-a-Scape | DiscoverMagazine.com

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2014/03/28/gmo-opponents-use-fear-deception-advance-cause/ accessed 30 March 2014

^[10] http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/February-2012/Dr-Joseph-Mercola-Visionary-or-Quack/

^[11] Bioengineered foods have been consumed for close to 20 years, and during that time, no overt consequences on human health have been reported and/or substantiated in the peer-reviewed literature.

https://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/443/a12-csaph2-bioengineeredfoods.pdf

^[12] All evidence evaluated to date indicates that unexpected and unintended compositional changes arise with all forms of genetic modification, including genetic engineering. Whether such compositional changes result in unintended health effects is dependent upon the nature of the substances altered and the biological consequences of the compounds. To date, no adverse health effects attributed to genetic engineering have been documented in the human population.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10977&page=8

^[13] There are occasional claims that feeding GM foods to animals causes aberrations ranging from digestive disorders, to sterility, tumors and premature death. Although such claims are often sensationalized and receive a great deal of media attention, none have stood up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Indeed, a recent review of a dozen well-designed long-term animal feeding studies comparing GM and non-GM potatoes, soy, rice, corn and triticale found that the GM and their non-GM counterparts are nutritionally equivalent.

http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/migrate/uploads/AAAS_GM_statement.pdf

^[14] Are foods from genetically engineered plants regulated by FDA? Yes. FDA regulates the safety of foods and food products from plant sources including food from genetically engineered plants. This includes animal feed, as under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, food is defined in relevant part as food for man and other animals.

http://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/biotechnology/ucm346030.htm

^[15] GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved.

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/biotech/20questions/en/ accessed 2 April 2014

^[16] J. Eric Oliver, PhD1; Thomas Wood, MA1. Medical Conspiracy Theories and Health Behaviors in the United States. Research Letter. JAMA Internal Medicine. March 17, 2014

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1835348 accessed 1 April 2014

^[17] Planes, Alex. Why Is Monsanto the Most Hated Company in the World? June, 2013.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl.aspx

^[18] Planes, Alex. Why Is Monsanto the Most Hated Company in the World? June, 2013.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl.aspx

^[19] Planes, Alex. Why Is Monsanto the Most Hated Company in the World? June, 2013.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/06/08/why-is-monsanto-the-most-hated-company-in-the-worl.aspx

^[20] http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/jan/24/worldwide-cancer-rates-uk-rate-drops accessed 2 April 2014

^[21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

^[22] http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/ accessed 2 April 2014

^[23] http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/the-human-toll-of-anti-gmo-hysteria Accessed 27 March 2014

^[24] Ropiek, David. Golden Rice Opponents Should Be Held Accountable for Health Problems Linked to Vitamin A Deficiency.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2014/03/15/golden-rice-opponents-should-be-held-accountable-for-health-problems-linked-to-vitamain-a-deficiency/ Accessed 2 April 2014

^[25] A bowl of (100 to 150 g) cooked Golden Rice (50 g dry weight) can provide 60% of the Chinese Recommended Nutrient Intake of vitamin A for 6-8-year-old children.

http://irri.org/ Accessed 3 April 2014

^[26]Goodman, Glenn. Biotech Bull. Lake County Record-Bee.

http://www.record-bee.com/readersviews/ci_25326689/opinion-letter-editor-biotech-bull Accessed 31 March 2014

^[27] http://randomrationality.com/2014/03/30/guest-post-the-union-of-concerned-trolls/

^[28] From Lynas to Pollan, Agreement that Golden Rice Trials Should Proceed – NYTimes.com

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/from-mark-lynas-to-michael-pollan-agreement-that-golden-rice-trials-should-proceed/ accessed 3 April 2014

^[29] http://www.who.int/nutrition/topics/vad/en/ accessed 2 April 2014

Golden Rice. Golden Opportunity.

You people in the developed world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?” – Dr. Florence Wambugu

The blind girl lurched toward me across the parking lot at Tirta Empul temple, mewling. I guessed she was ten to thirteen years of age, and shorter than she should have been. A whitish haze coated her eyes, each looking upward in a different direction. She moved herky-jerky due to poorly formed bones. I did not speak Indonesian; she did not speak English, yet there was no doubt what she wanted. Money. I gave her what I had in my pocket: a 5000 Rupiah note, about 42 cents.

She would buy rice with the little money I gave her. The food would fill her belly, but not her body’s needs.

Her condition is common for the poorest children in Asia; it is caused by a lack of Retinol (vitamin A). Retinol is a chemical (C20H30O) essential for healthy growth and vision. Most of us get enough vitamin A by eating a varied diet that includes yellow or green vegetables, though it is found also in cod liver oil and egg yolks. The poorest of the poor can afford to buy only rice, the cheapest food available. Rice has no vitamin A or beta-carotene, which our bodies convert to vitamin A. Chronic Vitamin A deficiency (VAD) causes irreversible blindness and poorly formed bones.

Half of the afflicted will die within one year. VAD is also a major cause in high rates of maternal mortality during pregnancy and childbirth.

I encountered the girl last November, when my wife and I had arrived in Bali, Indonesia for my son’s wedding. Our clothes clung to us. The temperature was in the 80s with humidity to match. The heat index was 104.

The “developing” in “developing country” is evident in Indonesia. People work hard and make very little. Indonesia’s GDP (Gross Domestic Product) per person is $ 4,923 per person per year; compare that with $51,704 for the United States.

The poorest of the poor can afford only rice to eat.

I saw rice fields everywhere I went. It seemed that any open field had rice planted on it. I watched Balinese men and women cut the rice stalks with a sickle and threshed the grain by hitting it against a screen into a container. Everything in the rice field seemed done by hand in the open sun. The people growing the rice can afford little more to eat than the rice they grow. And the rice they grow has no Retinol.

“Let’s make the choices available to the people who have to take the consequences” – Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute

Each year around the world, one half-million are afflicted with irreversible blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency, just like the girl I saw at the Hindu temple.

If only there were a way that the rice could help prevent vitamin A deficiency.

There is: Golden Rice, a genetically modified food. It was developed in the late 1990s by Ingo Potrykus of the Institute of Plant Sciences in Switzerland and Peter Beyer, professor for cell biology at Freiburg University in Germany. They borrowed ~~two genes from daffodils~~ a gene from corn [correction made per @Golden_Rice] and one gene from a bacterium (remember bacteria make up ninety percent of our bodies). One bowl of golden rice supplies 60 percent of the daily requirement of vitamin A. It may not be a silver bullet, but something that can save nearly 500,000 children each year from blindness and eventual death strikes me as a miracle.

You may not like the idea of genetically modified food, but you probably do not have to watch your child die due to a lack of vitamins. Neither you nor I have the right to deprive someone of food that can literally save his or her life. “Let’s make the choices available to the people who have to take the consequences,” Per Pinstrup-Andersen of the International Food Policy Research Institute told a group of congresspeople. Or as Dr. Florence Wambugu of Kenya puts it, “You people in the developed world are certainly free to debate the merits of genetically modified foods, but can we please eat first?”

If only those farmers I watched toiling under a brutal sun could be harvesting golden rice. Once countries such as Indonesia give their approval for golden rice, they can. It will be given to subsistence farmers without charge or restriction to grow. That will not save the little girl who confronted me in the temple parking lot, but it might save her sister.

Visit http://www.goldenrice.org for more information on Golden Rice.

The relationship between fire and drought in California 1987-2012

These graphs were posted without data points highlighted here last week in part because the governor of California called for additional fire staffing due to the state’s severe drought and I was curious if a correlation existed between low than average precipitation and fire:

The Governor’s drought State of Emergency directed CAL FIRE to “hire additional seasonal firefighters to suppress wildfires and take other needed actions to protect public safety during this time of elevated fire risk.”

But does a drought, or a wet year, mean “increased fires in both urban and rural areas”? The graphs below show the number of fires (1987-2012), the total acreages (1987-2012), and statewide in precipitation in California (1895-2012). If there is a correlation between increased fires and precipitation, it does not jump right out.

As noted on those graphs, a relationship between below average precipitation and either the number or acreage of fires, does not “jump right out.”

I first highlighted the well below average precipitation years (while none of the years from 1987 to 2012 are of the magnitude of 1976/1977 or this year’s drought, these data are what there is to work with). Then I highlighted those years on the fire acreage and number of fires charts. There does not seem to be a correlation either to the contemporaneous year or the one to two years following the low precipitation year. Additionally, my memory of the years 1976 and 1977 is that they were not particularly big fire years.

Still, 2014’s drought looks to be unprecedented in California’s recorded history.[1] Additional staffing for Cal Fire and increased vigilance are prudent.

Acreage burned in CA 1987-2012 annotated — Acreage burned in CA 1987-2012

California Rainfall annotated — California Rainfall

No of Fires in California 1987-2012 annotated — Number of Fires in California 1987-2012

[1] Though, Two mega-droughts occurred in what is now California long before we started to put massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One mega-drought started in 850 A.D. and ended in 1090. After a 50-year break, another mega-drought came in that lasted until 1320. That is 240 years and 180 years, respectively.

Looking for a relationship…between Precipitation and Fire in California

With limited rainfall and moisture levels already resembling the state’s peak fire season, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has hired 125 supplemental firefighters in Northern California and extended seasonal firefighting forces in Southern California due to dry winter conditions.

The Governor’s drought State of Emergency directed CAL FIRE to “hire additional seasonal firefighters to suppress wildfires and take other needed actions to protect public safety during this time of elevated fire risk.”

“We can’t make it rain,” said Governor Brown, “but we can be much better prepared for the terrible consequences that California’s drought now threatens, including dramatically less water for our farms and communities and increased fires in both urban and rural areas.”

But does a drought, or a wet year, mean “increased fires in both urban and rural areas”? The graphs below show the number of fires (1987-2012), the total acreages (1987-2012), and statewide in precipitation in California (1895-2012). If there is a correlation between increased fires and precipitation, it does not jump right out.

Acreage burned in CA 1987-2012 (Source: http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/AllAgenciesAcres&Fires.pdf)

Number of Fires in California 1987-2012 (Source: http://calfire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/AllAgenciesAcres&Fires.pdf)

A Drop in the Bucket: California’s Drought

Folsom Lake, gripped by drought, is less than ... — Folsom Lake, gripped by drought, is less than 25% full © Justin Smith / Wikimedia Commons, CC-By-SA-3.0

We Californians have had a pleasant climate these past few months. During the clear spell here in Lake County where I live, temperatures had even been in the seventies—tee-shirt and shorts weather. So far, the winter weather has been, by any standard, stunningly spectacular. One of the most stunning things about this winter is its lack of precipitation (last weekend’s storm was the exception to the rule). November through March is not supposed to be warm with gentle sunshine; January should have been wet and cold. January 2014 should go into the record books as the driest and warmest January in California since we started putting those figures on paper.

One dry year might not be bad, but California has had two dry years in a row before this one. Greg Giusti, County Director for UC Cooperative Extension, points out that droughts are part of “the reality of living in this climate zone.”[1] California has a Mediterranean climate of hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Giusti said that even if this drought was no worse than the one in the 1970s, its effect could be greater. Besides California now having twice the population when compared with the 1970s,[2] there are now legal requirements to consider the needs of wildlife.

“This is our hurricane Sandy,” Giusti said. California’s precipitation is currently trending lower than the 1923-24 record, which at 10.5 inches was the lowest precipitation ever measured in California; 1977 was 11.6 inches.[3] And this season, with two-thirds of this rainy season done, that record may fall. Last weekend’s storm did not end our drought. It was the equivalent of putting eight ounces of water into a five-gallon bucket.

This third dry year in a row has caught the attention of Sacramento. On January 17th, Governor Brown declared a state of emergency, calling for a voluntary 20 percent reduction in water use.[4] The State Water Project, which provides water to 25 million Californians and roughly 750,000 acres of irrigated farmland, is run by the Department of Water Resources. On January 31st, the Department of Water Resources announced for the first time ever in the SWP’s 54-year history—a zero allocation to all 29 public water agencies that buy from it.[5] While last weekend’s storm helped, “…it would need to rain and snow heavily every other day from now until May to get us back to average annual rain and snowfall,” state officials said in their press release.

Droughts stress all living systems: people, animals, and plants all need water for their survival. For most of us, a drought will be an expensive inconvenience. We may have to drill new wells or even have water trucked in. We certainly will pay higher prices for food. For those in agriculture, drought can be devastating.

Crops and livestock need ample water to grow, so drought hits agriculture especially hard. Steve Tylicki, general manager and viticulturist at Steele Wines, says in his forty years of experience in agriculture, this is the worst he has ever seen it, and it is even worse than the drought of 1976/1977.[6] Their vines will be pruned to withstand the drier soil conditions. After this pruning, he expects the vines will produce around 20-25 percent less than average. In his vineyards that do not have water for irrigation or frost protection (most water in established vineyards is for frost protection) he expects a 40 percent crop reduction this year.

My neighbor asked me if this drought was the result of Global Warming. It is certainly due to the ever-changing nature of the earth’s climate; how much of that change can be attributed to humans is an open question. Drought has visited California before. Two mega-droughts occurred in what is now California long before we started to put massive amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. One mega-drought started in 850 A.D. and ended in 1090. After a 50-year break, another mega-drought came in that lasted until 1320.[7] That is 240 years and 180 years, respectively. If this drought ends after this year, we will count ourselves lucky. Three years, in the cosmic scheme of things, is a mere drop in the bucket.

Footnotes:
[1] Personal conversation, 31 Jan 2014
[2] U.S. Population by state, 1790-2102
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html (accessed 1 Feb 2014)
[3] One Hundred Years of Rainfall Trends in California | WATERSHED.ORG
http://www.watershed.org/?q=node/86 (accessed 7 Feb 2014)
[4] California’s Governor Declares Drought State Of Emergency : The Two-Way : NPR
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/01/17/263529525/california-s-governor-declares-drought-state-of-emergency (accessed 25 Jan 2014)
[5] Press Release:
DWR Drops State Water Project Allocation to Zero, Seeks to Preserve Remaining Supplies: Severe Drought Leads to Worst-Ever Water Supply Outlook http://www.water.ca.gov/news/newsreleases/2014/013114.pdf (accessed 31 Jan 2014)
[6] Personal conversation, 31 Jan 2014
[7] California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say – San Jose Mercury News http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more (accessed 29 Jan 2104)

https://d1xnn692s7u6t6.cloudfront.net/widget.js
(function k(){window.$SendToKindle&&window.$SendToKindle.Widget?$SendToKindle.Widget.init({}):setTimeout(k,500);})();

Some Background on “Organic” agriculture

Organic versus Conventionally Raised Nutritive Value

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles

Related articles