Interesting People mailing list archives
Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't.
From: "Dave Farber" <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 07:15:03 +0000
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com> Date: Sun, May 14, 2017 at 9:50 PM Subject: Re: [IP] Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com>, tongia () cmu edu <tongia () cmu edu>, <mary () hodder org> Rahul, your wise older gentleman must be pretty old because farmers have been using chemical inputs since 2500 BCE when the Sumerians used copper and sulphur compounds to control mites and funguses. The Rig Veda describes preparations from 6 poisonous plants that can be used to control pests, and the Krishi Parashara describes a preparation of neem extract and cow urine for pest control (sometime between 500 - 1100 CE), http://www.indianscience.org/essays/24-%20E--F-Krishi%20Parashar.pdf. In other words, there has never been any farming without pesticides because pests are ubiquitous. Early pesticides were prepared from poisonous plant extracts, and modern synthetic pesticides are mainly tweaked versions of these extracts: pyrethroids are versions of natural pyrethrum, neonicotinoids are versions of natural nicotines, and organophosphates are versions of snake venom. Nature is much more imaginative than we are when it comes to poisons. Removing chemicals from food is a non-starter because food is literally chemical in nature: proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, minerals: they’re literally all chemicals. Even if farmers didn’t add chemicals to the plants they grow, the food we eat still contains the natural pesticides that food creates to protect itself from pests: the flavors in food come from phenols and flavonoids that have pesticidal properties. This is OK because our bodies are adapted to eliminating these poisons from our bodies, no hippie detox needed. As to the union of organic and scientific farming, I’m afraid that’s on the organic people to resolve. It’s my opinion that we need to use genetic engineering to feed the world, but that appears to violate the tenets of the organic religion. So the people in Africa who are starving now because their governments won’t permit the cultivation of drought-resistant, pest-resistant, and nutrient-enhanced biotech foods will have to eat cake. Here’s a paper on the natural pesticides in the foods we eat plus some other goodies. *Dietary pesticides (99.99% all natural)* (carcinogens/mutagens/clastogens/coffee) BRUCE N. AMES, MARGIE PROFET, AND LoIs SWIRSKY GOLD Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol. 87, pp. 7777-7781, October 1990 Medical Sciences Division of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Barker Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720; and Cell and Molecular Biology Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720 Contributed by Bruce N. Ames, July 19, 1990 ABSTRACT The toxicological significance of exposures to synthetic chemicals is examined in the context of exposures to naturally occurring chemicals. We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves. Only 52 natural pesticides have been tested in high-dose animal cancer tests, and about half (27) are rodent carcinogens; these 27 are shown to be present in many common foods. We conclude that natural and synthetic chemicals are equally likely to be positive in animal cancer tests. We also conclude that at the low doses of most human exposures the comparative hazards of synthetic pesticide residues are insignificant. http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf — *Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? – A meta-analysis of European research* H.L. Tuomistoa, I.D. Hodgeb, P. Riordana, D.W. Macdonalda Abstract Organic farming practices have been promoted as, inter alia, reducing the environmental impacts of agriculture. This meta-analysis systematically analyses published studies that compare environmental impacts of organic and conventional farming in Europe. The results show that organic farming practices generally have positive impacts on the environment per unit of area, but not necessarily per product unit. Organic farms tend to have higher soil organic matter content and lower nutrient losses (nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions and ammonia emissions) per unit of field area. However, ammonia emissions, nitrogen leaching and nitrous oxide emissions per product unit were higher from organic systems. Organic systems had lower energy requirements, but higher land use, eutrophication potential and acidification potential per product unit. The variation within the results across different studies was wide due to differences in the systems compared and research methods used. The only impacts that were found to differ significantly between the systems were soil organic matter content, nitrogen leaching, nitrous oxide emissions per unit of field area, energy use and land use. Most of the studies that compared biodiversity in organic and conventional farming demonstrated lower environmental impacts from organic farming. The key challenges in conventional farming are to improve soil quality (by versatile crop rotations and additions of organic material), recycle nutrients and enhance and protect biodiversity. In organic farming, the main challenges are to improve the nutrient management and increase yields. In order to reduce the environmental impacts of farming in Europe, research efforts and policies should be targeted to developing farming systems that produce high yields with low negative environmental impacts drawing on techniques from both organic and conventional systems. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712004264 -- *Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives?: A Systematic Review* Crystal Smith-Spangler, MD, MS; Margaret L. Brandeau, PhD; Grace E. Hunter, BA; J. Clay Bavinger, BA; Maren Pearson, BS; Paul J. Eschbach; Vandana Sundaram, MPH; Hau Liu, MD, MS, MBA, MPH; Patricia Schirmer, MD; Christopher Stave, MLS; Ingram Olkin, PhD; Dena M. Bravata, MD, MS Abstract 17 studies in humans and 223 studies of nutrient and contaminant levels in foods met inclusion criteria. Only 3 of the human studies examined clinical outcomes, finding no significant differences between populations by food type for allergic outcomes (eczema, wheeze, atopic sensitization) or symptomatic Campylobacter infection. Two studies reported significantly lower urinary pesticide levels among children consuming organic versus conventional diets, but studies of biomarker and nutrient levels in serum, urine, breast milk, and semen in adults did not identify clinically meaningful differences. All estimates of differences in nutrient and contaminant levels in foods were highly heterogeneous except for the estimate for phosphorus; phosphorus levels were significantly higher than in conventional produce, although this difference is not clinically significant. The risk for contamination with detectable pesticide residues was lower among organic than conventional produce (risk difference, 30% [CI, −37% to −23%]), but differences in risk for exceeding maximum allowed limits were small. Escherichia coli contamination risk did not differ between organic and conventional produce. Bacterial contamination of retail chicken and pork was common but unrelated to farming method. However, the risk for isolating bacteria resistant to 3 or more antibiotics was higher in conventional than in organic chicken and pork (risk difference, 33% [CI, 21% to 45%]). Limitation: Studies were heterogeneous and limited in number, and publication bias may be present. Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Primary Funding Source: None. http://annals.org/aim/article/1355685/organic-foods-safer-healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review — Here’s a bonus on the environmental impact of almonds: (tl;dr: Just say no.) Almonds: crunchy, delicious, and…the center of a nefarious plot to suck California dry? They certainly have used up a lot of ink lately—partly inspired by our reporting over the past year. California's drought-stricken Central Valley churns out 80 percent of the globe's almonds, and since each nut takes a gallon of water to produce, they account for close to 10 percent of the state's annual agricultural water use—or more than what the entire population of Los Angeles and San Francisco use in a year. As Grist’s Nathanael Johnson put it, almonds have become a scapegoat of sorts—"the poster-nut for human wastefulness in California's drought." Or, as Alissa Walker put it in Gizmodo, "You know, ALMONDS, THE DEVIL'S NUT." It's not surprising that the almond backlash has inspired a backlash of its own. California agriculture is vast and complex, and its water woes can't hang entirely on any one commodity, not even one as charismatic as the devil's nut almond. And as many have pointed out, almonds have a lot going for them—they're nutritious, they taste good, and they're hugely profitable for California. In 2014, almonds brought in a whopping $11 billion to the state's economy. Plus, other foods—namely, animal products—use a whole lot more water per ounce than almonds. So almonds must be worth all the water they require, right? Not so fast. Before you jump to any conclusions, consider the following five facts: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/04/real-problem-almonds RB On May 14, 2017, at 2:41 PM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote: ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rahul Tongia <tongia () cmu edu> Date: Sun, May 14, 2017 at 4:37 PM Subject: Re: [IP] Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. To: David Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com> [for IP], Richard makes a lot of interesting points, but let me begin with a quote from a wise, older gentleman: "When I was young, all food was organic". Organic isn't the new fad - it was all we knew and had for the longest of time. Synthetic inputs were a necessity driven by the need for more food and/or economics. Re. "better" - one thing I will second - "organic" is often a label - and some organics mean "below a threshold". What we really need are pesticide free. I will also quote statisticians - absence of proof doesn't mean proof of absence. It's not clear why anyone would expect organic to have more nutrition, but it can still be healthier, esp. for the overall environment. Also, agricultural experts are divided on whether chemical inputs (nutrients) can be allowed (or not) compared to pesticides. Nitrogen fertilizers are a key part of higher yields, and I would choose them over pesticides if I had a choice. Regarding precision farming, yes, one can combine that with organic farming. Just like one can make compostable "plastic". This stuff doesn't have to be black or white! Rahul On Sun, May 14, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Richard Bennett <richard () bennett com> Date: May 13, 2017 at 4:42:53 PM EDT To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net> Cc: ip <ip () listbox com> Subject: Re: [IP] The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. This is a good practice that should be encouraged. Organic food is basically a scam because it’s not more nutritious that conventional GMO food, and it’s much worse for the environment that food grown with modern methods. Stanford did a monster analysis on the nutrition issues, and there have be numerous studies on the environmental impact. It comes down the fact that organic is less productive than conventional farming, so it takes more acres of land for organic to produce the same output. This means more water, more CO2 from tractors, and more runoff. Organic food has to be fertilized with manure, which doesn’t have precise doses of nutrients. So farmers have to over-apply, which leads to runoff. Modern farming methods called “precision agriculture” apply water, pesticides, and nutrients on-demand and in the doses needed. This stuff is all enabled by IT, GPS, and networking in general. Organic is also horrible at carbon sequestration because its only effective weed control methods are manual pulling and plowing, while GMO farmers can use zero-till methods with herbicide-tolerant plants. Many people mistakenly believe that organic food is pesticide-free, while it isn’t. Organic farmers are permitted to use a broad panoply of pesticides from the OMRI registry and even to use synthetic pesticides in low doses when all else fails. As one would expect, naturally-derived pesticides are less effective than synthetics, hence higher doses and greater environmental impact. So the best solution for people who want to eat organic is to apply the organic label to conventional foods. This allows consumers to overpay and enjoy the placebo effect without harming the planet. Bravo. RB On May 13, 2017, at 10:34 AM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote: Begin forwarded message: From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com> Date: May 13, 2017 at 12:15:01 PM EDT To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net <dewayne-net () warpspeed com> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Reply-To: dewayne-net () warpspeed com The labels said ‘organic.’ But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren’t. By Peter Whoriskey May 12 2017 < https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-labels-said-organic-but-these-massive-imports-of-corn-and-soybeans-werent/2017/05/12/6d165984-2b76-11e7-a616-d7c8a68c1a66_story.html
A shipment of 36 million pounds of soybeans sailed late last year from Ukraine to Turkey to California. Along the way, it underwent a remarkable transformation. The cargo began as ordinary soybeans, according to documents obtained by The Washington Post. Like ordinary soybeans, they were fumigated with a pesticide. They were priced like ordinary soybeans, too. But by the time the 600-foot cargo ship carrying them to Stockton, Calif., arrived in December, the soybeans had been labeled “organic,” according to receipts, invoices and other shipping records. That switch — the addition of the “USDA Organic” designation — boosted their value by approximately $4 million, creating a windfall for at least one company in the supply chain. After being contacted by The Post, the broker for the soybeans, Annapolis-based Global Natural, emailed a statement saying it may have been “provided with false certification documents” regarding some grain shipments from Eastern Europe. About 21 million pounds of the soybeans have already been distributed to customers. The multimillion-dollar metamorphosis of the soybeans, as well as two other similar grain shipments in the past year examined by The Post, demonstrate weaknesses in the way that the United States ensures that what is sold as “USDA Organic” is really organic. The three shipments, each involving millions of pounds of “organic” corn or soybeans, were large enough to constitute a meaningful proportion of the U.S. supply of those commodities. All three were presented as organic, despite evidence to the contrary. And all three hailed from Turkey, now one of the largest exporters of organic products to the United States, according to Foreign Agricultural Service statistics. Agriculture Department officials said that they are investigating fraudulent organic grain shipments. But the agency declined to identify any of the firms or shipments involved. “We are continuing the investigation based on the evidence received,” it said in a statement. The imported corn and soybean shipments examined by The Post were largely destined to become animal feed and enter the supply chain for some of the largest organic food industries. Organic eggs, organic milk, organic chicken and organic beef are supposed to come from animals that consume organic feed, an added expense for farmers that contributes to the higher consumer prices on those items. While most food sold as “USDA Organic” is grown in the United States, at least half of some organic commodities — corn, soybeans and coffee — come from overseas, from as many as 100 countries. USDA officials say that their system for guarding against fraud is robust. Under USDA rules, a company importing an organic product must verify that it has come from a supplier that has a “USDA Organic” certificate. It must keep receipts and invoices. But it need not trace the product back to the farm. Some importers, aware of the possibility of fraud, request extra documentation. But others do not. Regardless of where organics come from, critics say, the system suffers from multiple weaknesses in enforcement: Farmers hire their own inspection companies; most inspections are announced days or weeks in advance and lack the element of surprise; and testing for pesticides is the exception rather than the rule. These vulnerabilities are magnified with imported products, which often involve more middlemen, each of whom could profit by relabeling conventional goods as “organic.” The temptation could be substantial, too: Products with a “USDA Organic” label routinely sell for twice the price of their conventional counterparts. In recent years, even as the amount of organic corn and soybeans imported to the United States has more than tripled, the USDA has not issued any major sanctions for the import of fraudulent grain, U.S. farmers said. “The U.S. market is the easiest for potentially fraudulent organic products to penetrate because the chances of getting caught here are not very high,” said John Bobbe, executive director of the Organic Farmers’ Agency for Relationship Marketing, or OFARM, a farmer cooperative. In Europe and Canada, he said, import rules for organics are much stricter. Moreover, even when the USDA has responded to complaints of questionable imports, action has come too late to prevent the products from reaching consumers. [snip] Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://dewaynenet.wordpress.com/feed/> — Richard Bennett Founder/Publisher, High Tech Forum Consultant Archives | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now — Richard Bennett Founder/Publisher, High Tech Forum Consultant ------------------------------------------- Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125 Unsubscribe Now: https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170515031521:3FC192F2-393E-11E7-BF8B-DEF5C85B6F93 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Dave Farber (May 13)
- Message not available
- Message not available
- Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Dave Farber (May 14)
- Message not available
- Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Dave Farber (May 15)
- Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Dave Farber (May 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re The labels said 'organic.' But these massive imports of corn and soybeans weren't. Dave Farber (May 22)