After reading Why GMO Foods Have Failed at Producing Healthy Food for More People, I don’t think I should have given him that much credit. I already covered most of his points in my previous post, but he makes some new points in this article that are, frankly, reminiscent of the scaremongering lies promoted by the Republican party about imaginary death panels.

I had been of the mind that Rodale was a strong research institution that was overall a good force for agriculture and for science, even if I disagree with some of their recommendations about biotechnology. If Dr. LaSalle’s lack of critical thinking is any indication of what his organization is capable of, then I must admit I was misled as to their purposes.

One sentence from the article says it all:

As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes.

Really? We have no other explanations for any of these? Such as increased self-reporting due to media coverage of previous increased self-reporting?

Hopefully I will soon have time to do another point by point analysis, but for now I’ll leave you with a thought from one of the commenters on the article, K:

Ignoring scientific data when it suits you is no way to become a respectable source of information. If treehugger wants me to go against scientific data when it comes to GM foods, why should I believe any articles that want me to go with science when it comes to global warming?

I don’t need an article that is all, “yay, GM foods!”, but I do need an article that presents both the pros and cons, or, at the very least, cons that are real and not made-up.

PS: I was tempted to accompany this post with one of the many insane fearmongering images people have made about biotechnology, but I just couldn’t stomach it.

I’m frustrated by Smith’s star status among anti-GMO activists for quite a few reasons, but the main one is: who the heck is he? His official bio is incredibly vague. I found snippets of information in comments on various sites that all seem to source back to an article by Alex Avery. The article, Jeffrey Smith – A Highest Flying Activist’s Hidden Scientific Beliefs?, says that Smith is a poor source for science information because of his belief in yogic flying, a type of transcendental meditation. Unfortunately, I’m wary of taking Avery at face value as well because he presumes to speak on topics he doesn’t have training in, but at least Avery has a Bachelor’s Degree in Biology. Smith apparently has an MBA, but I can’t find where his degree was from or what his undergrad degree was in. I also can’t find what Smith did before mysteriously becoming an anti-GMO guru, other than his being an aide for one James E. Davis, who ran for US Senate in 1996 in Illinois for the Natural Law party, earning 0.3% of the vote. According to some sites, like Smith’s bio at the Penrhos Trust, he ran for US Senate in 1998 in Iowa, but he isn’t listed in the relevant Wikipedia article (or in the Des Moines Register). He might have connections to Maharishi University of Management (is this where he got that MBA?) but doesn’t come up in a search on their site either. According to the Penrhos bio and others, Smith was VP of Marketing for a GMO detection lab, but I can’t find any details about that. In interviews with anti-GMO publications, Smith claims to have worked for various non-profits “do gooder type of things” but provides no details.

Am I just really bad at Googling? Let me know if you can find anything, I’m curious. Regardless of what he has done, it sounds like exactly zero of it prepared him to be a communicator of science. On this blog, I discuss things I know I don’t have expertise in, but I don’t claim to be an expert in them. I also have my credentials, at least my job and school history, posted clearly. What are these people hiding that they can’t do the same? I hope that people will start to be more transparent about these things, because the context of the person making a claim is often very important in interpreting the claim. How does this matter? Here’s what I replied to the email:

I have a scenario for you. Let’s say someone sends you a press release of the CEO of Monsanto making all sorts of claims that GMOs are the best, totally safe, going to save the world, blah blah blah. Do you believe him? Probably not, because you know he’s got a lot to gain from making exaggerations and even from telling complete untruths. You might not realize it, but Jeffery Smith makes a lot of money from his website, books, and speaking engagements. Do you really trust a guy that makes his living on what he says to be 100% truthful? I don’t. Let’s extend this idea to subjects other than GMOs… Would you believe a door to door salesman of Product X to be 100% truthful about the product? Would you believe a chiropractor who told you that there were no other options for back pain besides chiropracty? Would you trust a pro-life activist to give good advice on birth control? How about asking an oil executive about global warming? Of course not, because we know all of these people have something to gain by getting you to believe what they say. It’s not that everything that they say is 100% a lie. If that was the case, you’d see through them in a minute. No, they’ll tell 90% truth, as much as they need to so that they can slip in a few exaggerations or falsehoods and have them sound like truth. Not that anyone is necessarily doing this on purpose, it can be subconscious. We all carry biases on a variety of topics – those proverbial rose colored glasses can color what we say as well as what we see. We just have to be careful to take things with a little bit of caution (or a lot of caution as the case may be) and to get information from multiple sources, including sources we know are biased the other way. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. It also helps if the source actually has at least a little bit of professional training or credentials in the subject they purport to be an expert in.

Aspergillus infected corn. Iowa State University Extension.

The National Corn Growers Association is an important trade group. Their mission is to advocate and lobby on behalf of corn growers, or as they say “to create and increase opportunities for corn growers”. At the Maize Genetics Conference, I got to listen to their Chair of the Research and Business Development Action Team, Pam Johnson (you can find my summary of her remarks in my post Research and the Recession). She was a little overenthusiastic, but generally made sense, advocating for better cooperation between government and industry to produce more useful research. I hate to say it, but, was all that just for show?

Like any special interest group, NCGA puts out information that is biased toward their own agenda. This is nothing new, every special interest group from Greenpeace to AgBioWorld does it. I know it happens, and yet, I was still shocked yesterday when I read the report Research Shines Light on Gulf of Mexico Hypoxic Zone (full paper). The cause of the hypoxic zone has been thoroughly researched by multiple respected organizations including NOAA and USGS, but NCGA throws all that research aside in this report.

Let’s not blame nitrogen fertilization of corn, they say. Instead, it’s increased population causing more sewage and the fertilization of lawns (really, they say that). Some of their points are valid, but taken as a whole, the report may as well be an April Fool’s Joke (unfortunately, it’s not April, and I’m not laughing).

If I was expecting bias, then why does this matter? It matters because there is theoretically supposed to be collaboration between academia, government, NGOs, consumer groups, industry, and trade groups. All of these stakeholders must cooperate in order to conduct risk analysis, to decide research agendas, to form policy. Ultimately, they must all work together and compromise, finding ways that each stakeholder may benefit the most. When any one of those stakeholders goes off on their own and twists science for their own agenda, everyone loses. The twister loses status, becomes less respected. Everyone else loses because a viewpoint is effectively removed from the conversation. (Yes, I know this is an idealized view, but this is the way things are supposed to be, darn it!)

Because of bad science, or rather, bad use of science, many organizations have no credibility in my book (at least when it comes to certain issues). Every piece of information should be corroborated with several reliable sources but it gets much more difficult when sources become less reliable!

One example is UCS. They do great work on a variety of topics, but when it comes to genetic engineering, they let their agenda twist science too much. In their recent report, Failure to Yield, they apparently didn’t bother to consult any experts on biotechnology or agriculture, or only talked to scientists who were too ideological to report reality.

Now, unfortunately, I have to add NCGA to the list of organizations from whom I must take reports with a whole bowl of salt, instead of just a pinch.

NCGA would have far better served their constituents and everyone else by admitting that N runoff is a big problem. Then, they could push for more research into NUE (nitrogen use efficient) crops, alternative fertilization schemes like injection instead of spreading, rotation schemes that aid in soil fertility, prevention of fertilizer runoff with buffer strips on waterways and cover crops… there is a lot to be done! Now that NCGA has said there is no problem, who will push for research into these alternatives?

Update: I was thinking about this a bit more last night and wanted to add a few more comments about the report.

The report seems to make two claims: first, there is no Gulf dead zone, and second, if there is a dead zone, it’s not due to corn. I’ll tackle the second claim first…

Lawn fertilization is contributing to hypoxia, at least at the local level. As the NCGA report says, we actually harvest a good portion of the N applied to corn fields, while none of the N applied to lawns is harvested. In fact, there is currently a watershed protection/rehabilitation project going on right in my neighborhood. Our stream is so polluted with N and P runoff that it’s hypoxic. Combine that with tons of fecal coliform and more N from dog poop runoff and we’ve got a problem!

A collaborative of community members, the City of Ames, Iowa State and USDA researchers are working to build buffer strips of trees and grasses along the stream, along with an educational campaign encouraging people to use less fertilizer and pick up after their pets. I hope this effort is being repeated across the country, especially for golf courses.

A bit of an aside: similar problems exist along streams in farmer’s fields, as they try to plant as much of their land as possible, instead of leaving riparian buffer strips to absorb fertilizer (chemical or manure) and pesticides. Work done by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Leopold Center of Iowa State has shown that many benefits can come of riparian buffer strips, which can (among other things):  “cut nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff as much as 80%” and “cut sediment in surface runoff as much as 90%”.

In my Sustainable Ag Colloquium class, we’ve had speakers discuss using the buffer strip as an additional source of income, growing fruit trees and bushes as well as other crops that can be sold locally for relatively high prices. The area may also be used for recreation.

The report also mentions sewage as a source of N. I don’t know what is happening specifically in the Midwest, but I know sewage is a huge problem in the Chesapeake. Maryland’s sewage and water treatment systems were made at a time when they didn’t anticipate such population growth. Consequently, whenever it rains, the sewers overflow into the streets and right into the Potomac River and Chesapeake Bay. Not just disgusting, it’s bad for the environment and human health. I’d be surprised if other cities didn’t have similar issues.

All of that said, while lawns and sewage are sources of N that need to be addressed, it’s preposterous to say that N runoff from corn fields isn’t a factor. On a perfect field in a perfect year, little N would be lost, but we rarely get perfection. Instead, we get ill timed rains that wash away fertilizer and fields that drain right into watersheds.

As I said before the update, NCGA would be better off admitting a role in N runoff and working with other organizations to solve the problem. As for denying the existence of the dead zone, such talk completely contradicts decades of work by USGS and others. NCGA denies any correlation between hypoxic area and input of N from waterflow, but this graph by Louisiana U researchers is quite clear. I don’t know what happened every year, but here are some examples. In 1993 there was a great flood that washed extra N into the Missippi River basin, which is correlated with an increase in hypoxic area. In 2000 there was a drought so very little N was washed into the basin, correlated with a steep decrease in hypoxic area. In 2008 there were terrible floods in Iowa, so I’m surprised that year isn’t higher, perhaps the floods were local?

I wonder if I could get a guest post from one of the grad students at LA U to help explain the correlations. As for the fish and shrimp catch data presented in the report, I just wanted to point out that the Gulf of Mexico is pretty big. I don’t know how much the catch data for the whole Gulf reflects on the area that is said to be hypoxic. It would be a lot better to have research vessels do catch and release in the areas that are supposed to be hypoxic to determine a correlation between O2 levels in the water and various marine species, or at least collect information from fishermen in those areas. Maybe this has been done, but I must go do an experiment myself, no time to look this up.

This report, as is typical, shows that more studies need to be done and better models need to be made. It doesn’t invalidate all that is known about hypoxia. I just wish that NCGA had tempered their tone rather than saying that all of the other researchers are wrong. If they are wrong, then prove it! I’m not holding my breath, but perhaps the fish have to.

How did the heavy metal get in there? In making HFCS — that “natural” sweetener, as the Corn Refiners Associaton [sic] likes to call it — caustic soda is one ingredient used to separate corn starch from the corn kernel. Apparently most caustic soda for years has been produced in industrial chlorine (chlor-alkali) plants, where it can be contaminated with mercury that it passes on to the HFCS, and then to consumers.

First of all, I’m no particular fan of corn syrup; it tastes nasty and I avoid it. However, I also avoid added sugar or rice syrup or any other sweetener because I eat enough calories without them. Various types of foodie have been railing against HFCS for a long time, but I haven’t actually be able to figure out why. Instead of saying “HFCS is bad” we should be saying “processed food is bad”. Any special link between obesity and HFCS was broken in December with a comprehensive review in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (see press release in Newswise). The other argument against HFCS is that we are growing too much corn, but this is a sidestep at best. If people really cared about the amount of acres taken up by corn, they’d be saying “eat less meat” instead of “eat less corn syrup” (see the ISU Extension fact sheet about corn syrup for the uses of corn – ironically, you can’t get both ethanol and HFSC from a given bushel). Seriously, if you don’t like the stuff, then don’t eat it – but it’s helping no one to spread falsehoods and exaggerations.

Ok, back to mercury. While I’ll be the last person to say that the FDA is doing the best job in keeping us all safe, or that food processing conglomerates aren’t out to get a profit no matter what, American capitalism does have some protective effects. I’d wager that the Corn Refiners Association knew about the possible contamination source long ago and has done their best to remove or reduce it (which is exactly right, according to the CRA press release) simply to avoid future boycotts and lawsuits. Some commenters on Janet’s post were also skeptical, along with Marion Nestle on her Food Politics blog.

Marion points out that the study used no controls, and I heartily agree. The researchers should have obtained multiple brands of approximately equivalent foods (vanilla flavored yogurt for example), tested for mercury, and looked for any statistically significant differences between those that contain and those that do not contain HFCS. Without this comparison, the result that “nearly one in three” of the products contained detectable amounts of mercury is meaningless. Some amount of mercury is in everything we eat, processed or not, perhaps the result of decades of coal burning. Of course, there’s many more details to consider…

Some of their conclusions are good, like better food oversight and cleaning up chlorine plants, but, overall, the report Not So Sweet: Missing Mercury and High Fructose Corn Syrup from the IATP (Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy) is propaganda. It’s full of inflammatory language like:

Just published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Environmental Health, is the bombshell that commercial HFCS appears to be routinely contaminated with mercury. It turns out the contamination isn’t so much accidental as newly recognized, given the fact that much HFCS has been made and continues to be made using “mercury-grade” caustic soda.

The full text of the peer-reviewed study Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar is available from Environmental Health, but it only contains the study on HFCS itself (not of processed foods). The writing style is too conversational for a scientific paper, but it is better than the IATP report. According to the abstract:

The [HFCS] samples were found to contain levels of mercury ranging from below a detection limit of 0.005 to 0.570 micrograms mercury per gram of high fructose corn syrup. Average daily consumption of high fructose corn syrup is about 50 grams per person in the United States.

Perhaps that consumption estimate is a little low. Let’s use the estimates reported in Not So Sweet: “American 19- to 30-year-olds consume about 60 grams of HFCS per day. For 12- to 18-year olds, HFCS consumption is about 70 grams”. Worst case scenario, a “heavy user” may consume 39.9 ug (0.0399 mg) per day (if all 70 g of HFCS were produced with mercury cells), according to this data.

Before we panic (or write condescending blog posts), we should know: how much mercury is in HFCS today, what form of mercury is it, how much mercury is in various foods, and how much of the mercury in food products is from HFCS compared to other ingredients?

The data in the Env. Health paper is from 2005. Why is it just now being published? The CRA says HFCS production methods have changed since this data was collected, so it would be irresponsible to make policy based on it. The authors said they were unable to secure HFCS from the sources as they did in 2005 – but couldn’t they get the samples from the food processors that buy the syrup? It feels like they just gave up (or that they knew a newer data set might prove their conclusions wrong).

The form of mercury matters because the different forms are absorbed into the body differently. According to the DoE Risk Assessment Information System’s page on mercury:

Gastrointestinal absorption of inorganic salts of mercury from food is <15% for mice and about 7% for humans (Goyer 1991). Organic mercury compounds (methyl- and phenylmercury) have been shown to be readily absorbed (>80%) by humans and animals following oral exposure (ATSDR 1989, Goyer 1991).

In other words, measuring the total mercury isn’t as useful as it seems. If the mercury in HFCS is the type that accumulates in fish, then we have cause to worry. If it is inorganic mercury, (as we would expect from  the mercury cell process) then the danger is minimized to a worst case scenario 0.0028 mg effective dose of mercury per day.

In Not So Sweet, the question of how much mercury ends up in food products that contain HFCS is answered (sort of). Their results are discussed by ChemRisk, “a leading scientific consulting firm” in a report they made at the behest of the CRA, along with a comparison of these values with other foods:

More than two-thirds of the samples analyzed by IATP had no detectable level of mercury at all. In the remaining sample, most of these were at or near the limit of detection. The average concentration for the 17 samples with detectable levels was only 128 parts per trillion (ppt). EPA sets limits for mercury in drinking water at two parts per billion.

It is well known that small amounts of mercury are broadly present in our environment. For example, Health Canada reported in 2003 that the concentrations of total mercury in steak ranged from 420 to 1,800 parts per trillion (ppt); fresh pork contained 1,100 to 1,500 ppt; organ meats (liver and kidney) contained over 2,100 ppt; and lamb contained 290 to 2,300 ppt of total mercury. (Dabeka et al, 2003) For the sake of reference, one part per trillion is equal to one drop of water spread out into 26 Olympic-size swimming pools. (Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, 2009)

That same study by Health Canada looked at mercury in seafood, finding amounts that ranged from 40,000 ppt in fresh or frozen marine fish to 148,000 ppt in canned fish. Other foods, such as canned mushrooms, had 5,100 to 16,000 ppt total mercury, grapes had 180 to 590 ppt, blueberries 210 to 640 ppt, rice 570 to 1,800 ppt, raisins upwards of 700 ppt, and shelled seeds up to 1,000 parts per trillion (ppt).

Unfortunately, Dabeka, et al. isn’t available for free. The numbers reported by ChemRisk do match numbers I found elsewhere when researching this post.

Without controls in a properly designed experiment, we do not know if the mercury found in the items they tested is due to HFCS or if it is due to other ingredients. There are many ingredients that are common to a variety of processed foods. The ChemRisk report states:

IATP assumes that the total mercury they detected in a questionably small sampling of consumer foods is primarily the result of high fructose corn syrup; an assumption that has not been properly tested or validated. In fact, the authors do not attempt to characterize whether there may be mercury in any other ingredients contained within the consumer products tested, even while the recipes for the items studied may have had multiple sources of potential contamination.

Normally my suggestion for health and safety is simple: eat as little processed food and as few animal products as possible. Even that general message of moderation won’t work when it comes to mercury. Unfortunately, mercury is all around us. It would be nice to get kids to cut back on sweets, and it would be nice if the mercury cell HFCS refining process was changed, but the real problem is elsewhere. I have to question the ethics of any organization the leads us on a wild goose chase.

Coal fired power plants are the single largest emitter of mercury into the atmosphere. If you really care about children ingesting mercury in their food, write letters to your congressmen demanding that they act to reduce mercury emissions from existing plants (the technology exists) and to prevent new coal fired plants from being built. Encouraging China to do the same is another matter entirely.

One upcoming source of mercury in the environment is CFC light bulbs. They won’t be anywhere near the level of pollution from coal fired plants, but we should be conscious of the mercury in the bulbs. According to EcoGeek, some places are now offering recycling. Contact your city leaders and ask for CFC recycling in your area.

Renee Dufault, Blaise LeBlanc, Roseanne Schnoll, Charles Cornett, Laura Schweitzer, Lyn Patrick, Jane Hightower, David Wallinga, Walter Lukiw (2009). Mercury from chlor-alkali plants: measured concentrations in food product sugar Environmental Health, 8 (1) DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-8-2

Alan McHughen, plant biotechnologist at UC Riverside and author of Pandora’s Picnic Basket, is one of the professors participating in Debating Science, helping the students to develop an informational website about bioethics that may one day be relesased to the public. He recently shared some insights with the group that he has allowed me to share with you (emphasis original)…

I just returned from a trip to Lithuania and Poland, giving talks to university students, farmers and the public. They confirmed what I’d often thought, that the variouscriticisms of GE crops could equally be applied to conventional breeding, but rarely, if ever, are.This doesn’t necessarily mean the criticisms are invalid, but it does mean we show prejudiceagainst GE by applying the criticisms exclusively to GE.

For some examples:

1.GEis unnatural; it requires human intervention to produce plants that could not be produced by Nature alone. Conventional counterexample: Grafts between rootstock and scion of different species could not exist without human intervention. GE is singled out for this criticism. There is no regulatory scrutiny for interspecific grafts.

2.GE is disruptive to the genome, inserts t-DNA randomly and unpredictably Conventional counterexample:Ionizing radiation is far more disruptive to the genome and unpredictable in its effects. GE is singled out for this criticism. There is no regulatory scrutiny for mutation breeding.

3. GE crosses the species barrier; nature does not allow genes to cross the species barrier Conventional counterexample: Wheat, triticale and many other examples of conventional breeding to move genes from one species to a different one. Even in nature, Agrobacteriumtumefaciens does itacross distant and completely unrelated species, and without human help.GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for interspecific crossing.

4. HT GE crops can cross with wild relatives, creating hybrid ‘superweeds’. Conventional counterexample: All crop cultivars carry some (natural) HT genes, and these can (and do) cross into wild relatives to create hybrids with herbicide tolerance(e.g. triazine tolerant canola). GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for outcrossing of conventional HT cultivars.

5. Successful GE cultivars can lead to broad regional monoculture, exposing the crop to diseases and other threats. Conventional counterexample: So can a successful conventional cultivar lead to monoculture. GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for monoculture of conventional cultivars.

6. GEcultivars requirefarmers to buy seed each year. Conventional counterexample: Conventional hybrids also require farmers to buy fresh seed each year. They’ve done so since the mid-20^thCentury. GE is singled out for this criticism. There’s no regulatory scrutiny for conventional hybrids.

7.GE seeds are patented and so use of their seeds is restricted. Conventional counterexample: Patents can also exist on conventional cultivars. And Not all GE cultivars are patented. GE is singled out for this criticism. Patenting is not unique or limited to GE, normustGE cultivars be patented.

8.GE cultivars are controlled by big companies and intended to make profits. Conventional counterexample: All seed companies intend to make profit, even with sales of seed of conventional cultivars. Also, not all GE cultivars are from private companies (e.g.GE papaya in Hawaii). GE is singled out for this criticism.

Can you think of any examples of a criticism of GE that cannot also be applied to conventional breeding?

Myth one: Organic farming is good for the environment “A litre of organic milk requires 80 per cent more land than conventional milk to produce, has 20 per cent greater global warming potential, releases 60 per cent more nutrients to water sources, and contributes 70 per cent more to acid rain.” These numbers are surprising, but not altogether different from what I’ve read elsewhere. Organically grown food can have yields comparable to conventional in good years, but doesn’t yield as well when stressed with pests and unideal climate. So, in our imperfect world full of droughts, corn borers, and various fungi to name a few – organic fields are often less productive, requiring more land to grow the same amount of food. I wasn’t able to find the report from the Food and Rural Affairs office of the UK Department for Environment that was mentioned in the article. I really have to question this statement: “organically reared cows burp twice as much methane as conventionally reared cattle”. With my limited knowledge of bovine digestion, the statement would make more sense if it said “grain fed cows burp x amount more methane than grass fed.” I have to wonder if this is a misinterpretation on the author’s part. Grain is not good for cows, organic or not.

Myth two: Organic farming is more sustainable This section of the article is probably the worst of all seven. While it is probably true that a “hectare of conventionally farmed land produces 2.5 times more potatoes than an organic one”, and that “heated greenhouse tomatoes in Britain use up to 100 times more energy than those grown in fields in Africa”, I don’t know if these things can be directly compared. Transportation is a big issue that needs to be considered. I’ve seen this greenhouse tomato reference in multiple anti-organic articles, so I have to wonder if it’s hearsay based only loosely on actual science.

Myth three: Organic farming doesn’t use pesticides This part hits the nail on the head. Just because a pesticide is labeled organic doesn’t mean it’s safe, and many non-organic pesticides have very low toxicity for non-target organisms. The organic pesticide that particularly concerns me is copper (used specifically as a fungicide on many crops from potatoes to soy). Copper is considered a pollutant because it binds tightly to the soil and can not be removed. If soil concentrations reach a certain level, copper kills plants and soil microorganisms. The problem comes when a farm stays organic year after year, applying more and more copper that builds up to contaminate the land. Coincidentally, I went to a poster session yesterday that was held by the Sustainable Agriculture department at ISU, and saw a poster advocating the use of copper to treat fungus in organic soy. I could only shake my head. The article also mentions rotenone, an “organic” neurotoxin from some tropical plant roots that is used as an insecticide. Thankfully, rotenone is being banned in more and more places since it has been linked to Parkinson’s disease. It should have been banned sooner because of its toxicity to fish.

Myth four: Pesticide levels in conventional food are dangerous The author states that the oft mentioned “epidemic of cancer” is false. After some research, I agree. Cancer Statistics, 2007 (full article here, access required, just ask if you’d like a PDF) published in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians by the American Cancer Society, says that conclusions on cancer rates are difficult to make, but that rates do not seem to be rising. I don’t, however, agree with the statement that “cancer rates are falling dramatically”. If anything, they look to be stable. With all of the changes in the environment of the typical developed world person in the past decades, it would be impossible to link pesticide to cancer anyway. Additionally, pesticide levels in conventional food in developed countries are well below international standards.

Myth five: Organic food is healthier Organic produce is actually more likely to harbor bacteria than conventional produce, simply due to fertilizer choice. There is some concern about untreated illness in organic animals, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say that organic animals are generally sickly. Instead, organic farmers choose hardy breeds that are less likely to get sick. Antibiotic resistant bacteria appear in both organic and conventional animals, and food poisoning is just as likely from one as from the other.

Myth six: Organic food contains more nutrients Improved omega 3s and other nutrients in meat, milk and eggs has nothing to do with whether or not the animals are raised organically, and everything to do with what the animals are fed. The increased flavnoid levels in organic produce may be a misinterpretation. Stressed plants produce more defensive compounds (i.e. flavnoids), so it could be argued that this is evidence that organic plants are stressed (an interesting point when we consider “plant dignity” as codified by the Swiss). I am amused by the author’s alternative interpretation of research: “The easiest way to increase the concentration of nutrients in food is to leave it in an airing cupboard for a few days. Dehydrated foods contain much higher concentrations of carbohydrates and nutrients than whole foods. But, just as in humans, dehydration is often a sign of disease.”

Myth seven: The demand for organic food is booming If organic food is so much better, so worth the additional costs of growing it, then why is the amount of organically farmed land so small? Why are there so few organic farmers? The “debate” between agribusiness and organic is a false one. Organic lobbyists have just as much to gain from pushing their agenda as conventional farmers and agribusiness do. All the more reason to depend on science to guide our decisions. As the author says: “In a serious age, we should talk about the future seriously and not use food scares and misinformation as a tactic to increase sales.”

She asked if I was an undergrad, so I said that I’m a PhD student majoring in plant genetics, improving nutrition of corn. With a half smile, she said “just don’t go putting wheat genes in corn, or the celiacs won’t be able to eat it anymore.” Celiac disease is basically an intolerance of gluten in wheat, rye, barley, and possibly oats. When celiacs eat gluten from these sources, they get a lot of nasty symptoms like pain and diarrhea. If they keep eating gluten, they have a much higher risk of gastro-intestinal cancer (from celiac.com).

Having this gluten properly labeled is of great concern to celiacs, as is expected. The idea of other food plants containing the very thing that makes them sick is understandably very frightening. They are against genetic engineering of food crops for this very reason. I really wish scientists did a better job of educating the public. As I explained to the nutritionist, when scientists engineer a plant, only one or a few genes are involved. Let’s say that we find a strain of wheat that has great tolerance to salty soils, and farmers want corn with that trait. Scientists can find the gene or genes responsible for the tolerance. The gene of interest is either cut out of the wheat genome or is synthesized with a machine. Then, that gene is used to transform corn, usually with a gene gun. Only that one wheat gene is used. The corn plant has the instructions now on how to be salt tolerant. It does not have the instructions on how to make gluten. It will therefore contain no gluten, and won’t make celiacs sick.