the GMO Letters

One June 26th, I found this letter in the Pickens County Herald (pcherald.com) and decided to write a response.  Below is the letter I saw and then my response.




"Dear Editor,
As a mother and grandmother, entrusted with feeding and nourishing my family, I can understand the fear of GMO foods. But as a farmer who uses GMO seeds to grow soybeans, corn and other crops, I don’t believe there’s any reason to be afraid of this technology.I believe the fear stems from the fact that most people are multiple generations removed from the farm and do not understand the function of GMOs in agriculture.For thousands of years, our ancestors have been genetically modifying plants and seeds through plant breeding. Today, through biotechnology, scientists can make those natural processes happen much faster.GMO stands for genetically modified organism. To create one, a scientist alters a seed’s DNA to achieve a desired outcome, such as making it more tolerant to drought or decreasing the need for pesticides. These changes help farmers become more productive and produce a better crop.On our family farm, for instance, we use varieties of biotech-enhanced corn that are resistant to a common Alabama pest called the southwestern corn borer. Similar varieties help farmers manage pests, diseases and environmental stresses in soybeans, corn and many other crops. These varieties help us increase our yields and provide an abundant supply of food, feed, fuel and fiber to the world.The use of GMO crops has also reduced the number of chemical applications needed to produce the crop. This is beneficial for the environment because we’re conserving fuel, reducing emissions from our tractors as well as reducing the amount of actual chemicals being applied. Overall, our carbon footprint is being reduced because of GMOs.There are numerous reasons for using GMOs, but the final one I’ll mention is because I know the seeds went through a rigorous safety-approval process. Not one, not two, but three government entities — the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency — work together to inspect and approve each and every genetically altered seed variety and plant brought to the market. This process is thorough and time-intensive, lasting between 10-15 years. What is really reassuring is that in the 12-plus years modern biotech crops have been commercially grown, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or person made ill.As Americans, we are lucky to have so many food choices. You have the choice to consume foods that use GMO ingredients or not, but my hope is for you to understand the benefits of each choice. With that said, I will leave you with this final thought: If you have questions about how food is grown or raised, I encourage you to ask the people who have the answers: farmers.
Sincerely,
Annie Dee
Aliceville, AL


Dear Editor:
My family has been farmers since time immemorial, and I am completely against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), so I felt rather patronized by Mrs. Dee’s letter to the Editor last week. I understand that she is a farmer of some note and merit who has chosen to champion the standard of big-business agriculture and who believes the public relations machine of Monsanto and companies like it. That’s her prerogative. She seems to think that the technology of agribusiness GMOs will provide the world with an overwhelming abundance of food, feed, fuel, and fiber –I think it’s the job of the indomitable family farm. I can’t let America’s farms become minions of profiting international agri-business corporations.
Essentially, there are four things I would like to point out about GMOs: 1) There is a big difference between hybridization and genetic engineering, 2) Genetic engineering has already caused damaging ecological effects, and could cause irreversible damage, 3) GMOs have not been absolutely proven safe for humans, and 4) When it comes to choice of consumption we don’t have that choice --it’s forced upon us.
There is a difference between hybridization, which farmers have been doing for thousands of years, and genetic engineering, which is a relatively new technology. They are two totally different farming technologies. Hybridization has been used since the beginning of agriculture - it has given us specific breeds with specific traits within a species. Farmers would breed one type of cattle with another type of cattle to create a hybrid that had the best characteristics of both types.  Farmers would also improve grain harvests through hybridizing one variety of corn with another type of corn.
The problem with modern genetic engineering is that lab-created GMOs combine genes between barriers that cannot occur naturally. Deliberately combining genetic material of one genus with genetic material from a different taxonomic genus is a far cry from the combining of genes within a species by hybridization. For example, Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria DNA is inserted into corn DNA to create genetically modified BT corn. This corn was created to produce the bacterial Bt toxin that is poisonous to certain insect pests, such as the southwestern corn borer. So far, bacillus thuringiensis DNA has been added to corn, potatoes, sugar beets, soy, canola, and cotton. Besides adding DNA from different creatures, scientists also change natural gene sequences; thus creating organisms with characteristics that could never occur in nature or even through hybridization. There is also the problem of irreversible genetic pollution in the environment caused by GMOs.
Theoretically, if a genetically modified salmon bred with wild salmon, unnatural genes would be introduced into the wild population that will remain forever. The same problem of genetic pollution could be seen in corn, wheat, rice or any other crop that has been modified. A hybrid tomato cross-pollinating with a non-hybrid tomato isn't going to radically change the tomato, while a GMO tomato could introduce genetic material from fish or another organism into other tomatoes and totally change what a tomato is. Cross-pollination could totally wipe out open-pollinated heirloom varieties of corn and other crops and make organically grown crops obsolete. A 2004 study showed that GMO creeping bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera) transmitted its genes by wind pollination to different Agrostis species almost nine miles away.
Do GMOs really help the environment by reducing pesticide use consequently conserving fuel and reducing carbon emissions? Not really. Washington State University agronomist Charles Benbrook notes that “genetically engineered (GE) crops have been responsible for an increase of 383 million pounds of herbicide use in the US over the first 13 years of commercial use of GE crops (1996–2008). This dramatic increase in the volume of herbicides applied swamps the decrease in insecticide use attributable to GE corn and cotton, making the overall chemical footprint of today’s GE crops decidedly negative… The primary cause of the increase [is] the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds.”
Resistance occurs naturally when a pest is subjected to intense repeated use of a single pesticide or herbicide. This has already occurred with Bollworm resistance to BT cotton in the Australia, China, Spain and the United States. Armyworms have already become resistant to genetically modified corn created by Dupont-Dow and grown in Florida and Puerto Rico. (And here I’d like to make a side note that Field Crops Research (2005) wrote that field tests of Bt corn showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GMO counterparts. The International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability (2013) just published a study that reports conventional plant breeding, not genetic engineering, is responsible for yield increases in major U.S. crops and that GMO crops can’t even take credit for reductions in pesticide use.)
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support the claim that GMOs have never made a person ill.  However, a 2011 Canadian study looked at the presence of the BT toxin in non-pregnant women, pregnant women and fetal blood. All groups had detectable levels of the BT toxin in their blood, including 93% of pregnant women and 80% of fetuses.  The truth is that we don’t really know what effect GMOs could have on the human body or what the effect of transference of genetic material to might be. One German study showed that when bees released into a field of BT canola fed the canola pollen to younger bees, the bacteria in the gut of the young bees took on the traits of the canola’s modified genes, proving that genetically modified DNA in pollen can be transferred to bees though their digestive system.  In 1999, Andrew Chesson of the University of Aberdeen warned that testing of GMOs might be flawed and might allow harmful substances into the human food supply.  You have to remember that the FDA approved commercial production of GMOs is based on studies conducted by the companies who created them and profit from their sale; there seems to be a lack of hard independent scientific data on the safety of consuming GMOs. There are thirty countries around the world that restrict or ban GMOs because they haven’t actually been proven to be safe for human consumption.
Do you have a choice of whether to consume genetically modified organisms or not?  Not in the United States of America you don’t.  Even if you could directly remove it from your diet, it is still fed to meat animals here in the United States.  According to the USDA, 93% of soy, 93% of cotton, and 86% of corn grown in the U.S. are GMO. It is estimated that over 90% of canola grown is GMO. There are also commercially produced GMO varieties of sugar beets, squash and Hawaiian Papaya.  Currently, there were no genetically modified animals approved for use as food, but a genetically modified salmon is close to being approved. It is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. grocery store.  In Europe any products containing more than .09% (point zero nine percent) genetically modified ingredients are labeled; however the United States has no such labeling requirement.  You really have no freedom of choice in what you consume.  Top Chef judge Tom Colicchio says it best: “Its’ not about taste. For me, it’s not even about the science. It's about freedom. We call ourselves the land of the free and the home of the brave, we export freedom around the globe, we try to anyway, we fight wars in the name of freedom, and yet I don't have the freedom to know what’s in my food.”
Respectfully yours,
Tom Clardy
Reform, AL 35481

The Green Thing

       This story has circulated the Net and has been posted on Facebook. I don't know the original source (if you do, please let me know so I can credit it). I'd thought I'd share it and my response to it (at the end).

The story

       "Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older woman, that she should bring her own grocery bags because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. 
       The woman apologized and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days." 
       The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations." 
       She was right -- our generation didn't have the 'green thing' in its day. 
       Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled. 
       But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. 
       Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags, that we reused for numerous things, most memorable besides household garbage bags, was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our schoolbooks. This was to ensure that public property, (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribbling. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags. 
        But too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. 
       We walked up stairs, because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. 
       But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day. 
       Back then, we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throwaway kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts -- wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. 
       But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. 
       Back then, we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana . In the kitchen, we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us. When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power. We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. 
       But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then. 
       We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. 
       But we didn't have the "green thing" back then. 
       Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing." We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from 
satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.

 But isn't it sad that the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then? 
       Please forward this on to another selfish old person who needs a lesson in conservation from a smartass young person... 
       We don't like being old in the first place, so it doesn't take much to piss us off...especially from a smartass who can't make change without the cash register telling them how much. 
The end !' 

My response

       “Yes, ma’am, all those were good practices. My grandmother and mother lived through those times too.  I’ve heard many stories of economizing and re-using.  I agree that people waste a lot, and that our generation is different.  But let’s put things in perspective.  No, you didn’t have a ‘green thing’ because you all thought there was pretty much an endless supply of oil and gas, as well as forest and water.  Protecting the environment, as a resource, wasn’t on anyone’s radar –otherwise rivers would’ve never become so polluted that some would actually catch fire.  Recycling was a matter of personal economic necessity for some, but for the most part it didn’t exist – discard it or burn it was business as usual.  No one thought about the ‘green thing’ back then because if they had they would have never used pure nicotine, cyanide, arsenic, mercury, lead, DDT, Chlordecone, or other such harsh and deadly chemicals in their homes and gardens –much less put them in their bodies.  Your generation didn’t see any intrinsic value in mountains, pristine nature or small communities; otherwise, you would’ve never leveled mountains, stripped mined away whole ecosystems and communities merely for financial gain.  Because your generation didn’t understand or have the ‘green thing’ we’ve had to live with the consequences and develop a ‘green thing’. So here take a reusable grocery bag on me and don’t forget it next time you go shopping.  Have a nice day.”

"A Nice Cup of Tea" by George Orwell

("A Nice Cup of Tea" is an essay by British writer George Orwell, first published in the Evening Standard newspaper of 12 January 1946)

A Nice Cup of Tea

By George Orwell

       If you look up ‘tea’ in the first cookery book that comes to hand you will probably find that it is unmentioned; or at most you will find a few lines of sketchy instructions which give no ruling on several of the most important points.

       This is curious, not only because tea is one of the main stays of civilization in this country, as well as in Eire, Australia and New Zealand, but because the best manner of making it is the subject of violent disputes.

       When I look through my own recipe for the perfect cup of tea, I find no fewer than eleven outstanding points. On perhaps two of them there would be pretty general agreement, but at least four others are acutely controversial. Here are my own eleven rules, every one of which I regard as golden:

       First of all, one should use Indian or Ceylonese tea. China tea has virtues which are not to be despised nowadays — it is economical, and one can drink it without milk — but there is not much stimulation in it. One does not feel wiser, braver or more optimistic after drinking it. Anyone who has used that comforting phrase ‘a nice cup of tea’ invariably means Indian tea. Secondly, tea should be made in small quantities — that is, in a teapot. Tea out of an urn is always tasteless, while army tea, made in a cauldron, tastes of grease and whitewash. The teapot should be made of china or earthenware. Silver or Britanniaware teapots produce inferior tea and enamel pots are worse; though curiously enough a pewter teapot (a rarity nowadays) is not so bad. Thirdly, the pot should be warmed beforehand. This is better done by placing it on the hob than by the usual method of swilling it outwith hot water. Fourthly, the tea should be strong. For a pot holding a quart, if you are going to fill it nearly to the brim, six heaped teaspoons would be about right. In a time of rationing, this is not an idea that can be realized on every day of the week, but I maintain that one strong cup of tea is better than twenty weak ones. All true tea lovers not only like their tea strong, but like it a little stronger with each year that passes — a fact which is recognized in the extra ration issued to old-age pensioners. Fifthly, the tea should be put straight into the pot. No strainers, muslin bags or other devices to imprison the tea. In some countries teapots are fitted with little dangling baskets under the spout to catch the stray leaves, which are supposed to be harmful. Actually one can swallow tea-leaves in considerable quantities without ill effect, and if the tea is not loose in the pot it never infuses properly. Sixthly, one should take the teapot to the kettle and not the other way about. The water should be actually boiling at the moment of impact, which means that one should keep it on the flame while one pours. Some people add that one should only use water that has been freshly brought to the boil, but I have never noticed that it makes any difference. Seventhly, after making the tea, one should stir it, or better, give the pot a good shake, afterwards allowing the leaves to settle. Eighthly, one should drink out of a good breakfast cup — that is,the cylindrical type of cup, not the flat, shallow type. The breakfast cup holds more, and with the other kind one’s tea is always half cold before one has well started on it. Ninthly, one should pour the cream off the milk before using it for tea. Milk that is too creamy always gives tea a sickly taste. Tenthly, one should pour tea into the cup first. This is one of the most controversial points of all; indeed in every family in Britain there are probably two schools of thought on the subject. The milk-first school can bring forward some fairly strong arguments, butI maintain that my own argument is unanswerable. This is that, by putting the tea in first and stirring as one pours, one can exactly regulate the amount of milk whereas one is liable to put in too muchmilk if one does it the other way round. Lastly, tea — unless one is drinking it in the Russian style — should be drunk without sugar. I know very well that I am in a minority here. But still, how can you call yourself a true tea-lover if you destroy the flavour of your tea by putting sugar in it? It would be equally reasonable to put in pepper or salt. Tea is meant to be bitter, just as beer is meant to be bitter. If you sweeten it, you are no longer tasting the tea, you are merely tasting the sugar; you could make a very similar drink by dissolving sugar in plain hot water.

Some people would answer that they don’t like tea in itself, that they only drink it in order to be warmed and stimulated, and they need sugar to take the taste away. To those misguided people I would say: Try drinking tea without sugar for, say, a fortnight and it is very unlikely that you will ever want to ruin your tea by sweetening it again.

       These are not the only controversial points to arise in connexion with tea drinking, but they are sufficient to show how subtilized the whole business has become. There is also the mysterious social etiquette surrounding the teapot (why is it considered vulgar to drink out of your saucer, for instance?) and much might be written about the subsidiary uses of tealeaves, such as telling fortunes, predicting the arrival of visitors, feeding rabbits, healing burns and sweeping thecarpet. It is worth paying attention to such details as warming the pot and using water that is really boiling, so as to make quite sure of wringing out of one’s ration the twenty good, strong cups of that two ounces, properly handled, ought to represent.

1946

Sustainable Agriculture - Key to Food Security

No one can argue that agriculture plays a large part in the lives of everyone who eats.  And no one can argue that agriculture has many challenges in the future, including threatened resources of land and water.  Many  I do not agree that the traditional brand of conventional agriculture is the best path toward the future. I, as others, believe that the farming practices that promote the use of chemicals to supply nutrients and pest control are not sustainable or economically sound.  We also believe that the current agricultural use of genetically modified organisms is not socially acceptable or environmentally sound. Conventional agriculture has given us much over the years but at what cost –our food security? We would like to see our nation, follow a path of sustainable agriculture to maintain our food security.

“Sustainable Agriculture is a philosophy based on human goals and on understanding the long-term impact of our activities on the environment and on other species. Use of this philosophy guides our application of prior experience and the latest scientific advances to create integrated, resource-conserving, equitable farming systems. These systems reduce environmental degradation, maintain agricultural productivity, promote economic viability in both the short and long term and maintain stable rural communities and quality of life,” as defined by Sustainable Agriculture in Temperate Zones (C.A. Francis, C.B. Flora, and L.D. King. 1990). Three criteria that appear most frequently in a definition of sustainable agriculture are: Environmentally sound, economically viable, and socially acceptable.  Sustainable agriculture encompasses every agricultural practice striving to meet these criteria, not just alternative farming practices i.e. organic farming, permaculture, et al.  Sustainable agriculture is really a long-term goal, not a specific set of farming practices.  Use of chemicals in conventional farming may well continue to be a part of agriculture; however, farmers should and will seek alternatives due to environmental, economical, or regulatory (social) reasons.

The use of genetically modified organisms is a dangerous practice antithetical to sustainable farming.  We should not welcome any advances of any corporation involved in the creation, promotion, and sale of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). They are inseparable from large-scale intensive farming, as well as dependent on the heavy use of expensive chemicals, which are known to be toxic. The use of GMOs affects food security by degrading soils, polluting water and fueling climate change.

Our food security will not occur if we continue farming the same way we have been.  Corporations making chemicals or creating GMOs will not grant our food security.  The only way we will have food security in the future is by implementing the long-term goal of sustainable agricultural practices; and we hold the future in your hands.

I begin...

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,

Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. 

- Hamlet (1.5.166-7)