It Goes Against the Grain

 

Comparing hybrids and GMOs

Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has come out on the side of Monsanto in the case of Vernon Hugh Bowman vs. Monsanto Company et al, those of us with an interest in food and agriculture are thinking a lot about seeds. Vernon Bowman is a farmer sued by Monsanto for patent infringement who took his case all the way up to the highest court in the land and lost.  Reading about this case, its background and its ramifications quickly gets one into hundreds and hundreds of articles largely about corn and soybeans, GMOs and Monsanto. One soon finds that this is because these two crops dominate US agriculture and it is estimated that more than 80% of corn and 90% of the soybeans in the US are grown from GMO seed, most of it sold by Monsanto. These mind-boggling statistics alone are an indication of the rich lode of material to be mined in this situation and looked at from any number of perspectives: legal, health and safety, history and tradition, farming practices, mentality, philosophy and beliefs etc.

One aspect seldom mentioned in the articles I have found is a comparison of hybrid and GMO seeds. The comparison of GMOs and traditional open-pollinated crops is discussed frequently as a juxtaposition of the most modern technology and the oldest, most traditional way of growing food. Hybridization is somewhere in between and throws a lot of light on the reasons for the extreme contentiousness of the whole Monsanto/GMO/industrial agriculture subject matter. Hybrids and GMOs have a lot in common and some revealing and far-reaching differences.

Hybridization got its start in the US in the 1920s, and by the mid 1950s virtually all the corn in the US was grown from hybrid seed. This rapid acceptance is replicated in the 20-30 year history of GMO crops, with the high percentages of corn and soybeans mentioned above accompanied by that of GMO cotton, weighing in with well over 90% of the American crop. Hybrid seeds, like GMO seeds, are more expensive than open-pollinated varieties. But the most interesting similarity is the fact that hybrid seeds, like GMOs, have to be purchased anew each year, but for a different reason. The second generation of hybrids will have far smaller yields, as a rule, and will not “breed true”; the progeny will not all resemble the parent plants and will usually be of lesser quality. On the other hand, it is Monsanto that has decreed that its GMO seeds may not be propagated into the second generation; they grow true to their parent seeds if planted.

This far different reason points up the fact that while GMOs are man-made, hybrids are man-manipulated; the pollination process is natural. It is easy for the farmer to pay more for hybrid seed that promises better taste, resistance to disease and greater yields; it will pay off financially, even though he must buy it anew each year. In addition, while hybrids usually have a number of superior qualities appreciated by the consumer, GMO crops tend to have only one different characteristic, resistance to a particular herbicide, for instance. It is difficult not to notice that the particular herbicide is sold by the same firm that owns the patent on the seeds.

No one worries about the safety of hybrids or contamination by them. There are no suits and court cases brought against hybrids. Farmers and hobby gardeners have free choice between hybrid and open-pollinated seed. There is an enormous difference between adapting natural processes to human needs, which is, after all, what farming is all about, and interfering with those processes at the genetic level. The latter goes against the grain of agricultural history; it produces gut reactions – puns intended.  It definitely goes against the grain of human freedom not to have a choice of GMO or non-GMO seeds, and this is fast becoming reality. GMOs are contaminating non-GMO plants about as rapidly as agri giants like Monsanto are taking over the seed market in the United States.

The Bee – Nature’s Emissary

 

For some years now, bees the world over have been in trouble. Colony Collapse Disorder is the name given to this until recently baffling phenomenon, in which bee colonies are decimated. We usually think honey when we hear bees, but of far greater value to mankind is the pollinating activity of the bee; the FAO estimated in 2010 that more than 2/3 of the world’s major food crops are bee-pollinated (http://www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0512sp1.htm). Visions of humanity being wiped out if the bees all disappear loom on the horizon. 

An almond farmer in Swiss director Markus Imhoof’s recent film More than Honey expresses the place of the bee in the world very succinctly when he says that the bees are go-betweens. Almond trees produces almonds and a bee produces honey, but the bee also interacts with the almond tree to pollinate. Bees bring nectar to the hive and transform it into honey. A bee is a wild animal living in the highly complex social structure that is the hive, and colony behavior is a fine example of cooperation and intricate interaction. The bee is a messenger from the natural world to the human one, producing for us not only honey but also royal jelly, beeswax and propolis. It is a key weaver of the web of life. Because bees are threatened and also commercially so important, they are a high profile exemplification of natural rhythms and relationships brought to bear on human society.

I have had the good fortune to visit a bee house, an old wooden structure in the woods with boxes for the hives along the back. The aged wood, the sweet waxy aroma and our protective garb all contributed to the feeling of ancient ritual. My grandson lifted out one of the frames, the flat structures on which the bees create the honeycomb, and held it close so we could observe the animals at work. I had the feeling of being very present in an age-old natural process, very close to the rhythms of life.

The film More than Honey shows the bees’ interaction with humans and machines and chemicals as well, and reveals how fragile these relationships are if the whole process is not respected. Using pesticides to wipe out predators on food crops, for example, is a single-minded, single-target approach, completely out of whack with this complex network. It is ironic that the manufacturers of the pesticide issue dire warnings about severe crop losses if the pesticides are banned, while friends of the bees prophesy disaster if these chemicals continue to be used. If there are no bees to pollinate there will be no crops needing pesticides. The solution to caring for the bees and producing pest-free crops must be a networked solution. It will require a networking mentality. The bees can show us the way.

Tomato time

It’s tomato planting time!

 Even those of us who garden only on the balcony can pop the plants of this favorite veggie into large pots and they will reward us with plentiful succulent fruit all summer long. Tomatoes don’t like standing in the rain, so they are happy on a covered balcony.

The only problem with growing one’s own tomatoes is that one is forever spoiled – the taste is indescribably better than the usual mealy, watery, store-bought items. The choice of plants is dizzying and an education in itself. I stand in the veggie section of the garden center, inhaling the unique aroma of tomato leaves and studying the colorful labels scattered among the pots. There are varieties bearing fruit large and tiny, ribbed and date-shaped, yellow, purple or pink, types new and heirloom, hybrid and grafted. The mouth waters. One refrains from taking one of each.

The best attribute of heirloom tomatoes is their superior sweetness. Apparently the bright “tomato red” that we associate with the fruit is the result of a natural genetic mutation that unfortunately means sacrificing a sweet taste. Consumers seem to have preferred the red to the sweet for decades, but this is changing, thank goodness, with the reintroduction of heirloom varieties. They tend to produce very tall, sprawling plants, not the best for my small space.

But ah, the grafted plants, with a hardy root topped by a tasty, heavy bearing variety; the resulting combinations enjoy the best of both. I’ve grown these for years, eschewing the small, compact varieties bred especially for the balcony. They bear too little fruit and all at once. I tie up the larger plants so they don’t take over the entire space. I’m rewarded for the extra price I pay for grafted plants by freedom from disease and a luscious, bountiful crop all summer long.

And now I hope you’re starting your own tomato pot garden, maybe under the eaves on the south side of the house. Enjoy!   

Hunger for Justice

Hunger for Justice: the Immorality of our present food system

It came as a surprise to me, and perhaps it will to you, to learn that the right to food is included in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, enacted in 1948. Article 25 begins, “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food…………….”. Given that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated in 2012 that there were 868 million undernourished people in the world, it is staggering to see in various sources that from 30% to 50%  of worldwide food production rots or is thrown away. It would seem that the above right is not being implemented very satisfactorily.

What is going on here? Although starvation is partly caused by local factors like civil unrest and the effects of climate change, the data above point to a severe dislocation in the worldwide supply of food. This is the theme of the book Stuffed and Starved, by Raj Patel. In the introduction he tells us that the “stuffed” – the obese – are victims of the same problem as the “starved”: food production as it is now practiced on a global scale. Corporations, in other words, control what and how and whether we eat.

Let’s consider the “stuffed” aspect first. In 2013 there are enough calories available in the “land of the feed” to feed every US citizen twice over. Even subtracting the food that rots, is thrown away or sold and given in aid programs abroad, a great surplus still remains. It is therefore not surprising that food production firms do everything in their power to sell more food. Every time the US government has updated its dietary goals, the food industry has objected to any statement that could be construed to mean “eat less”, although from the health point of view that is exactly the advice many citizens need. Already in 1997 American children got 50% of their calories from added fat and sugar, a situation that has only gotten worse. Industry opposes government regulation, tries to discredit nutritional recommendations and intimidates critics.

The government, meanwhile, issues dietary recommendations with its right hand while using the left to subsidize the corn and soy used as animal feed or in so many products of no or little nutritional value. Fruits and veggies are not subsidized. As sweets and soft drinks offer up to 4 times the calories in the carrots that could be bought for the same money, healthy food is available only to those who can afford it. Not exactly what the Universal Declaration on Human Rights had in mind.

But now let’s turn to an even more dismal aspect of agribusiness, its contribution to growing numbers of starving humans. Soybean cultivation in South America feeds animals in Europe, while local farmers are forced off their land and starve. We have spoken of subsidies, which lead to overproduction that is exported to poor countries whether they want it or not, ruining their own local agriculture. “Free trade has nothing to do with freedom”, as Jean Ziegler, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food from 2000 to April 2008, commented, “ it’s the freedom of the predatory animal in the jungle” .

A modern addition to the causes of starvation is the subsidized use of corn for the production of biofuel, a practice that has little effect on carbon dioxide reduction but which has raised the price of corn dramatically. Stock market speculation on food has driven up prices as well.

Finally, the principles of the green revolution no longer apply; new principles need to be taught and implemented.

Solutions to these blatant perversions of food production abound: bring back local food production, better regulate hedge funds dealing with food, stop subsidizing biofuel, or produce it from waste organic raw material, are some that are gaining ground but slowly in the face of the enormous power wielded by agribusiness.

But isn’t there a far more basic cause of this extreme dislocation in food production and dissemination? Isn’t it simply morally wrong to treat food as just another commodity, like computers and printers? Should it be treated as the responsibility of a public utility, like water? Or partially government regulated, like health insurance in Switzerland?

Of course food is different from water in being far more complex. But it is ethically similar in there is a difference between what we need and what we want. We need to drink a certain amount of water each day; we do not need to water lawns or fill swimming pools. Indeed, it is just these uses that are forbidden in times of water shortages. Should certain practices, like forbidding speculation on food, be instituted?

Or should food production be treated like health insurance here in Switzerland? This would mean basic “packages”, government required and regulated, sold by private concerns in competition with one another. More luxurious food would be available to those who could afford it, but everyone would have the required basic food supply.

It is clear that reforming our food system in any meaningful way will be enormously complicated, particularly because agribusiness as it is presently practiced has such clout on the world market and in the seats of government. But to say it is impossible is to be complacent about the fact that obesity is now one of the most widespread medical problems in children and adolescents in the United States and other developed countries, while 1 in 8 people in the world go to sleep hungry every night.

It is also to say that the rights of agribusiness to continue its present practices unfettered are more important than the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Do we really believe this?

Sources and suggested reading

http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/

Food Politics, Marion Nestle

The Omnivore’s Dilemma, Michael Pollan

The film We Feed the World

Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply by Vandana Shiva

World Hunger: Twelve Myths by Frances Moore Lappe, Joseph Collins, Peter Rosse and Luis Esparza

In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan

Food for thought

You are what you eat

The phrase “You are what you eat” is an old one, but is heard more often now that we are becoming increasingly aware of just what constitutes a healthy diet. Those who imbibe mostly fruits, veggies and grains while limiting animal products and eschewing sweets and junk food should be able, we are told, to avoid certain diseases and enjoy better health in general.

In addition to this physical interpretation of the saying, there is another meaning that is just as relevant; the sociological implication. Tell me what you eat and I can make a good guess at your lifestyle, your income level, your attitude toward environmental matters and maybe even your political leanings. I'd venture to say that what you eat can reflect your whole philosophy of life.

OK – now I'd better be prepared to back up what I've said and give examples.

Let's take that healthy food. It's generally agreed that the Mediterranean diet is the ideal for westerners, but it's how it is prepared that says a lot about you. For example, I had a meal a while ago at a restaurant belonging to a group of establishments that promise to serve local, organic food. Well, yes, I suppose, but here's what I ate. The salad came first, a mix of uninspired greens and carrot chunks covered with a yogurt dressing. Fat-free yogurt, no oil, nothing to give it pizazz like lemon juice, herbs or even salt. Moving on to the main course, I made my way through a tasteless fish and its rice accompaniment. Booorrriing. And not even healthy. Carrots need to be grated if they are raw to expose as much surface as possible to the oil necessary to absorb carotene, the precursor of Vitamin A. Naturally, there needs to be oil in the dressing for this to happen. Olive oil is heart-healthy; no need to omit it. No reason not to marry the fish to lemon juice and herbs, or cook it in wine. To present healthy food that is not tasty is a sacrilege!

As it is a restaurant using local, seasonal products, the owners are concerned about the health of the patrons and of  the environment as well, but in a dreary, self-sacrificing way. This fits the picture society used to have of  “tree-huggers”, or as the Swiss say, “hand-knit” people. I guess there are still those who see living in a way that is healthy for the self and for the environment as a sacrifice, doing without.

It doesn't have to be this way. When I went to the Saturday morning market in the next town this morning I picked up organic red potatoes, small sweet carrots, asparagus, red chicory and parsnips.  Tonight I will cut the potatoes, carrots and parsnips in chunks, mix with olive oil and salt and roast them in the oven until they are soft inside and a bit crisp outside. The chicory will become the basis for a tasty salad (with olive oil!), lemon juice, pumpkin seeds and radishes. Tomorrow I will simmer salmon in a little wine, mustard, salt and lemon juice, cook the asparagus and some rice and grate carrots for a salad topped with chopped almonds. Eating healthily is joyful!

This is just fine, you say, if you have a market with fresh produce in the neighborhood and if you can afford organic food. It is a sad fact – outrageous actually – that the poor in the United States can only afford processed food, because it is made of subsidized raw materials. They are not in a position to choose foods that reflect their philosophy of life – they are just trying to get as many calories for as cheap a price as possible. Their diet, heavy in fat  and sugar, is the opposite of the boring meal in the restaurant above, but both reflect a skewed attitude toward that which feeds us – not only physically. The  agriculture and food processing industries as well as politics play an enormous part in creating this situation. But that's a subject for another post.