Now, after decades of debate, the Food and Drug Administration appears poised to issue its strongest guidelines on animal antibiotics yet, intended to reduce what it calls a clear risk to human health. They would end farm uses of the drugs simply to promote faster animal growth and call for tighter oversight by veterinarians.

The agency’s final version is expected within months, and comes at a time when animal confinement methods, safety monitoring and other aspects of so-called factory farming are also under sharp attack. The federal proposal has struck a nerve among major livestock producers, who argue that a direct link between farms and human illness has not been proved. The producers are vigorously opposing it even as many medical and health experts call it too timid.

Scores of scientific groups, including the American Medical Association and the Infectious Diseases Society of America, are calling for even stronger action that would bar most uses of key antibiotics in healthy animals, including use for disease prevention, as with Mr. Rowles’s piglets. Such a bill is gaining traction in Congress.

In case you are not familiar with the situation, often pigs, chickens and even cows are put into caged areas much to small for any living creature move around freely.  These confinement animal feeding operations (CAFOs) result in large amounts of animal waste that creates an ideal breeding ground for bacterial infection among the animals.  Farmers are aware of this and supplement their animal feeds with a range of antibiotics.

But the point here is more nuanced.  The battle over the line for antibiotic use on the farm center around their use as a growth promotion agent in animals.  Many CAFO farmers have learned that antibiotic cocktails cause their chicken to grow faster, their pigs to grow larger, etc.  Ag-centric scholarly journals have dubbed these agents ‘antibiotic growth promoters’ (AGPs) and they are subject of the FDA’s scrutiny.  Here is a good review of how they have been used:

Public health officials note that antibiotic resistance has grown by this abundant use of antibiotics.  The use is so abundant that is far outpaces the amount of antibiotics used by human beings.  According the Union of Concerned Scientists – a reputable NGO – non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock represents over 70% of the total amount of antibiotics created in the US.  The FDA is listening to those worries, which have been ignored up until now, with new ears.

Imagine if you had to live your life in a subway car with 300 of your closest friends.  It wouldn’t take long before somebody got the sniffles and, pretty soon, the whole car would be sick.  That’s the basic scenario at the CAFO that farmers are worried about.  Public health officials are worried about what happens if those resistant strains of bacteria get out of the CAFO and jump into humans.

This new FDA rule will not be an easy sell.  The agriculture and public health industries are extremely well connected on Capitol Hill and I’m not sure who’s dollar bills will look better to elected officials. I see major resistance shaping the end product here.

Building a Better Animal

The story briefly highlights the work of Cecil Forsberg a biologist from the University of Guelph in Ontario, who wanted to spare the environment the impact of pig farming.  The problem with swine CAFOs is they produce huge amounts of waste that are stored in so called ‘swine lagoons‘.  These open air pig waste ponds have been the subject of much debate, with the EPA studying them for polluting ground water with estrogenic compounds while the hog farming capital of the world, North Carolina, has gone so far as to ban their new construction outright.  But the real problem with the pig waste is what happens once it leaves the lagoon.

Much of swine effluent is sold as a spray on fertilizer for crops near the hog farms because of it’s high NPK values (ag talk for Nitrogen-Phosphorous-Potassium levels, critical to grow American corn and soy agronomic crops).  This concept makes logical sense and could even promote regional foodshed growth as a cheap form of nutrient dense fertilizer that comes from a natural source.  The problem is the volume of waste from giant hog farms far outstrips the local farmland’s ability to use it.  Most notable, is that phosphorous runoff from the pig waste finds its way into sensitive waterways where it promotes runaway algae growth that chokes off aquatic life from the oxygen it needs to survive, a process known as eutrophication.

Domesticated pigs eat a largely vegetarian diet of grain and soy that contains prodigious amounts of phytate, a complex compound their bodies cannot normally break down, causing these high phosphorous levels in the waste fertilizer.  Pigs still need phosphorous to make DNA so farmers solve this issue by buying free phosphorous for their pigs or supplementing with an enzyme called, appropriately enough, phytase.  But what if that was all unecessary?  What if the pig made phytase itself?

Enter Enviropig.

Forsberg, et al, have genetically engineered these Yorkshire pigs to produce phytase in their salivary glands, which breaks down the phytate into usable phosphorous for the pig.  The result?  30-65% reduction in phosphorous excretions. Enviropigs cost more than traditional breeds but, according to the Popsci article, save farmers $1.75 annually in supplementation costs – a big savings in the world of livestock production.  In a CAFO with 100K head of swine (which unfortunately aren’t going anywhere anytime soon), this would be a huge win for the marine environment, currently being decimated by many forces.  The pig awaits USDA and Health Canada approval as it has now successfully been breed into an 8th generation with no problems.

Ick, Ehh, or Yay?

GMO animals represent a promising new way to deal with the industrial scale of modern agriculture issues.  We say promising because, like always with genetic modification, the ideas are great but the implementation has left something to be desired.  It is heartening to see that the Enviropig was developed at the university level and not the corporate level, avoiding such pitfalls as the infamous terminator genes in some Monsanto GMO products.

It still strikes us as counterintuitive to create such a technology when simply lowering the density of swine at CAFOs would achieve the same effect.  Better yet, we could require CAFOs to treat swine waste much as we require cities to treat human waste before releasing it back into the environment.  Nevertheless, this is just one of many GMO animals to come and its a promising start.

It turns out birds aren’t bird brains when it comes to what they eat. A number of species of birds have been shown to choose foods that contain higher levels of healthy things like protein and antioxidants and lower levels of not-so-healthy things like heavy metals and pesticides. Since they’re such finicky eaters, scientists figured to let them choose between conventionally and organically grown food, and see which they deemed better for them. The vote was unanimous: birds prefer non-organic.

Birds Think Conventional Food Is Better

Researchers from Newcastle University purchased Alchemy variety wheat from a number of organic and conventional producers in Europe. They then ground the seed into 2mm or smaller sizes so that there was no textural difference between the two types. In their first experiment, they provided caged canaries with both types of wheat in identical bowls, and recorded how many seeds of each type they ate in 20 minutes. 66% of the time, they picked the non-organic variety – and they picked it more often as time went on, suggesting that those that tried both decided the conventional was better and stopped choosing the organic.

But maybe, the scientists thought, that since canaries are domesticated, it’s possible their food preferences are skewed by what’s provided in their normal, canary feed. Instead, they decided, they wanted to see what wild birds thought of organic and conventional wheat varieties.

They placed each variety in a bird feeders and put them in different gardens throughout northeast England. They measured the weight of food taken from each tube every two days for six weeks. Since wheat isn’t commonly used in commercial food for garden birds, it’s much less likely that they’d have a preference for either type based on previous encounters. To make sure that their own biases didn’t get involved, they coded the bags of wheat and didn’t tell the people who filled the feeders which was which, so they had no idea which feeder contained which type until after the experiment was finished. They chose a few different farms for each type, to make sure that it wasn’t just the effect of one farm’s practices. And just in case position mattered, they swapped the positions of the feeders on the farms, too, halfway through the experiment.

The garden birds, like the canaries, preferred the non-organic food. At 39 of the 45 gardens tested, conventional food eaten outweighed organic food eaten. On average, conventionally grown wheat accounted for ~60% of what the birds ate. And again, the scientists found that as the experiment went on, the birds ate less and less organic wheat.

Why Did The Birds Prefer Conventional Wheat?

The big question, of course, is why did the birds prefer the non-organic varieties? The researchers made sure that texture, size, and position weren’t factors. So what about the conventional wheat was so appealing?

To try and get to the bottom of that question, the scientists tested the different varieties of wheat. They tested their physical properties (weight per thousand seeds, hardness), nutritional levels (moisture, protein, fat, carbohydrate, energy, amino acids), and levels of potential negative qualities (toxin burden, microbes, oxalic acid, and pesticide residues). Levels of moisture, fat, carbohydrate, pesticide residues, cadmium, lead, microbial contamination (Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Enterobacteriaceae), oxalic acid, hardness and amino acid content were not significantly different between samples.

They did find one thing that was different, though: levels of protein. The conventional wheat they gave the canaries was 26% higher in protein than the organic, and the wheat they gave the garden birds was 6-26% higher (depending on which farm the conventional or organic wheat came from).

Could protein explain the difference in preference? Well, they decided to test that, too. They grew new samples of wheat under four different levels of fertilizer, yielding four types of wheat that were identical in every way except how much protein they contained. They then took the lowest protein variety and the highest protein variety (a difference of 14% between them) and asked canaries for their opinion. The bird’s choice? The higher protein food.

Ecologically, it makes perfect sense. Protein is an essential nutrient in the diet of all birds and mammals and is often limiting – especially for species that eat grains, which aren’t high in protein to begin with. Studies have found that birds and mammals, particularly if stressed, pick higher protein options. So when the birds in this study were presented with, as far as the birds (and the experimenters!) could tell are two equal foods except that one has more protein, why wouldn’t they choose the higher protein option?

So What Does This Mean For Non-Birds?

While this study is fascinating, and may speak to potential ecological implications of organic farming, it doesn’t say much about whether we should buy organic food or not. Just because the birds chose the conventionally grown wheat doesn’t mean we should, too.

The study found a clear nutritional distinction between the wheat types they used. In a grocery store, things get much more complicated. What would have happened if the conventional wheat had higher protein levels but also had higher pesticides? Would the birds have weighed the risk and reward? It’s anyone’s guess. Also, studies have gone back and forth about whether there are or aren’t differences in nutrition between organic and conventional foods. Even if we were to say we should eat whichever has higher X or lower Y, the jury is still out on organic v. conventional in that respect, too. Furthermore, it’s hard to compare bird nutrition to human nutrition, even though birds tend to prefer foods that are healthy for us, too.

Of course, we can learn a lesson from our feathered friends – they consistently choose the healthiest food option available. How many of us can say the same?

Reference:
McKenzie, A., & Whittingham, M. (2010). Birds select conventional over organic wheat when given free choice Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.4025

It would be great if we could just stop eating meat all together. But there’s one problem – we need complete dietary protein, and about 60 grams a day of it. This is what I call the Protein Problem: the problem is that we need a lot of protein, nutritionally speaking, but producing it is an ecological nightmare. If you’ve read my post about why protein is so nutritionally important, you know that meat is simply the best source of complete dietary protein. But it’s not the only source of it, and many human herbivores instead choose to eat soybean products, for they are rare in the vegetable kingdom in that they, too, contain all the essential amino acids that people need in their daily diet. Tofu and other soy products have been around for centuries, but lately they’ve become more and more popular as people seek an ecologically friendly way of eating a balanced diet.

But is becoming vegetarian and eating tofu the solution to our protein problem? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

Brief History of Soy

The soybean (or soya bean) is a species of legume, which places it in the same family as many pod-forming vegetables like peas as well as beans and lentils. Worldwide, over 150 million acres are planted every year. In the US, soybean oil accounts for about 80% of all the vegetable oils and animal fats (including things like butter) consumed each year. Due to it’s high production rate, it’s also often targeted for genetic engineering, and almost 90% of the 70 some odd million acres of US soybeans last year were genetically modified. Despite the large numbers, very little of the yearly soy crop is actually eaten by people. Most of it has its oils removed for use in industrial settings, the leftovers of which are used as animal feed.

People have been planting soybeans for over 5,000 years, but not to eat – like other legumes, soya plants fix nitrogen in the soil, making fields more fertile for other crops. It wasn’t until people started fermenting soy somewhere around 2,000 years ago that people began eating it, and even then it’s not been a huge part of the Asian diet. It only accounts for about 1% of the protein in their diet – the rest, go figure, is almost entirely from fish.

Soybeans are made into soymilk (which can be made into tofu), soy sauce, miso and oil. The beans are nutritious, though they cannot be eaten raw, for they contain enzymes that need to be deactivated by wet heat, as well as a host of compounds that aren’t terribly good for you. There is even some debate as to how much of this bad stuff goes away even when they’re fermented or cooked – just to warn you. But they can be up to 1/3 protein by weight, including all of the essential amino acids, as well as low in fat and high in other vitamins.

Most often, those who eat soy products as a dietary source of protein consume soymilk or its derivative, tofu. Soymilk is produced by soaking dry soybeans and grinding them with water. Tofu, in turn, is made from soymilk like cheese is from milk, by coagulating the protein into curd. Both contain much less protein than the beans did originally, though soymilk is comparable to cow’s milk while tofu contains only about 1/2 the amount of protein as cheese, though it also contains significantly fewer calories. Unlike the animal products they resemble, soymilk and tofu are naturally deficient in calcium, though often this nutrient is added during processing.

Soy’s Environmental Footprint

Soy products are often touted as natural alternatives to meat, but they’re far from it. Many are genetically modified, coated with herbicides and pesticides, and harvested with heavy machinery. Once taken from the land, the soybeans are processed in high-temperature factories and shipped thousands of gas-guzzling miles to end up on supermarket shelves. It would be funny that they’re called “natural,” if it wasn’t just so darned depressing to know the truth.

Soy isn’t some miracle food that somehow helps out the planet while we eat it. Like any other plant, soybeans have to be cultivated agriculturally. This takes space and water, and means it will have an environmental cost no matter what. The impact of growing soy, in particular, has been devastating to the world’s natural resources.

Soy is native to Asia, but most of it isn’t grown there – it’s grown in the Americas. Why does that matter? It matters because when a plant is grown in an environment that it’s not native to, it can cause all kinds of problems. Because they are predominately grown in foreign soils, soybeans are one of the most disease-riddled crops out there. To combat this, soya farmers coat their fields in lots of pesticides and herbicides, and similarly soya has become one of the most genetically engineered crops in the world.

Unlike potentially environmentally friendly alterations that can be made (like making a plant drought-resistant so less water is used, or flood resistant so that weeds can be removed by flooding instead of chemicals), soy is most often engineered to resist herbicides so that more chemicals can be sprayed on them to combat other weeds. The end result of which, of course, is that more toxins are being used to produce soy than any other cash crop, with the exception of corn. Indeed, soy products are some of the most pesticide-contaminated foodstuffs in the world – even the organic soy (remember, organic doesn’t mean chemical-free).

In South America, soy farming is one of the worst things ecologically that has ever happened to the continent. Up until the early ’80s, more than 90% of the world export of soy came from the US. Latin and Southern America realized that they were missing out on a big opportunity, and began wide-scale soya plantation. By 2003, the combined exports from Central and South America exceeded that of the US. But where did they find the space to plant all these beans?

Well, it turns out that as soybeans caught on as a cash crop, farmers decided that soy fields were far more beneficial to them than rainforests. The result was massive deforestation, particularly of the Amazon Rainforest. In just one year, over one million hectares of Brazilian Amazon Rainforest was replaced with soya farms. Deforestation doesn’t just reduce ecological habitat for the thousands of endemic species that live there, it releases tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.

Furthermore, the loss of trees means less organisms helping fight global warming by using and storing CO₂ in their tissues. On the plus side, activist organizations like Greenpeace have done a lot by exposing the atrocity that was occurring. They actually managed to push through a moratorium in 2008 that prevents any forest that is cleared from being used to grow soy. While this is a huge win for conservation, it doesn’t replace the millions of hectares of rainforest lost already, nor does it help the rainforest deal with the pesticides and nutrients that run off of these neighboring farms. Sadly, the moratorium is only a temporary solution to a very permanent problem.

The real question is, of course, is it better ecologically to eat soy than meat? After all, no matter how bad soy is for the environment, what people really want to know is whether it’s the lesser of two evils.

So What Diet Is Best for the Environment?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is muddy. Hands down, vegetarian diets are more efficient when it comes to acreage of land required to produce them… but that’s not the whole story. It does take less land area to produce soy than to produce cattle, chickens or pigs, so, yes, soy is better for the environment when it comes to square footage.

But quality is as important as quantity; a study from Cornell University suggests that completely cutting out meat might not be the best solution because animals like cattle can survive on land that isn’t suitable for crops, meaning poorer quality land can be used to produce livestock. In areas with poor-to-mediocre soil, for example, it’s probably more efficient to farm eggs for protein than to try growing vegetables that don’t flourish there – after all, animals can consume low-quality grain that isn’t necessarily fit for us. A recent study from the World Wildlife Fund also found that switching all of Britain’s meat eaters to tofu-eaters would require more land to be farmed in the country because of this effect.

The hot debate, however, is which produces more carbon emissions: a vegan or meat-eating diet. Despite what you might expect, the results are actually quite mixed, and it largely depends on what you eat and where it comes from.

One study estimated that it takes about 14 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce one calorie of milk protein on a conventional farm and a little less than 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy for an organic farm. To produce the same amount of organic soy protein takes only 0.75 calories – which seems like an easy win. But there’s a problem with the comparison: we don’t eat raw soy protein. The processing of soybeans into a consumable form, like soymilk, takes a lot of energy. Some research has even suggested that the carbon footprint of cow’s milk is less than soymilk, as the process of turning soybeans into milk is actually quite energetically expensive (not to mention making soy-burgers) – but exactly how much of a carbon impact this processing has hasn’t been thoroughly researched yet.

As it stands right now, because soy products are only a small share of the market, they are only produced in a small number of areas and often have to be shipped large distances to reach their market. Exactly how important these food miles are to a foodstuffs ecological impact isn’t well understood, but they certainly don’t make it smaller. Obviously, travel increases carbon emissions, but there are many other consequences of long-distance migration of food that are often forgotten; the ecological cost of creating roads to access remote fields, for example, which damage even fairly untouched ecosystems in the area by creating more vulnerable ecological “edges”.

In the end, the science does seem to support that soy products are better for the environment than red meat- but only barely. And choosing sustainable seafood may be better than either one of them. Even if soy wins out against all the other protein options, it’s hardly the clear-cut ecological solution it’s made out to be. Furthermore, it may not be all that healthy to eat soy as your #1 source of protein in the first place. Soy contains hormone mimics, protein-degrading enzymes and other potentially toxic or carcinogenic substances whose effects have yet to be fully evaluated in people who completely replace meat with soy.

Being Nutritionally & Ecologically Balanced

I’m sure the debate will continue to rage on, but there are some things you can do to be more eco-friendly no matter what side you’re on.

First off, eat local, no matter what it is. Transportation of foodstuffs from one place to another is an ecological cost that we can lessen greatly. If you can get vegetables grown locally from a farmer’s market or beef from a farm down the road – great. If soy is grown and processed in your area – super! Whatever is produced within a few hundred miles of you is automatically the more ecologically responsible option, and often local, smaller farms have more sustainable practices, too. It makes it much easier to do this if you plan your meals around what’s in season in your area, so you are less tempted to grab your favorite veggies when they have to be imported from fairer climates.

Secondly, know where your protein comes from even if it isn’t local, and make the best decision you can as to which ones to pick. Places like the Monterray Bay Aquarium have made it easy to choose sustainable seafood options, and you can often buy chicken and beef from somewhat local farms, even at supermarkets. If you can’t go local, go grass fed – the label requires sustainable farming practices. If you crave red meat and live in the US, maybe try bison instead of beef. Bison is lower in fat, higher in protein, and more ecologically sustainable. The prairie grasses that bison are fed on have evolved along with the bison for centuries, and both benefit from the relationship.

And thirdly, eat less all together! While a lack of protein might be a problem in developing nations, in wealthy nations like the US, we tend to eat more animal protein than we need. Heck, we tend to eat more than we need, period – that’s why upwards of 1/3 of our population is obese. Start by eating smaller meals altogether, and if you’re really hungry, have a locally-grown fruit or something as a snack. That way you can improve your diet AND help the environment at the same time!

Genetically modified foods have a significant image problem and much of that comes from the laissez-faire apparatus that has been put in place to regulate them. Scientists, in effect, over-estimated the scientific sophistication of the public and assumed no one would conflate the genetic modification of plants for humans. How this oversight has played out in the regulatory arena is instructive in trying to decipher some of the hatred pointed at GMOs and other scientific advances that may come to pass.

Understanding the Regulatory Apparatus

Right now, there is a lot of variation in the regulatory processes that monitor and label GMOs. Those that are tightest regulated are in the biomedical industry, where strict regulations on animal research in general ensure the ethical creation, treatment and use of GMOs. In the U.S., any procedure on an animal can be preformed if scientifically justified, though that justification isn’t always easy. Animals are regulated and protected under the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals, published by the National Academy of Sciences.

Any institution that conducts animal research must have a vet and an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC), which ensures that alternatives, including non-animal alternatives, have been considered, that the experiments don’t use more animals than necessary, and that pain relief is given unless it would interfere with the study. The IACUCs regulate all vertebrates in testing at institutions receiving federal funds in the USA. GM vertebrates purposefully bred for research are separately regulated under Public Health Service policies, and all of these regulations are enforced by the USDA, OLAW and the AAALAC. The hoops that researchers have to jump through to make and use GMOs are insane, though not in a bad way – they guarantee good science as well as the control and proper use of genetic technologies.

The Food Fight

As I alluded to, regulation of GM food is different. There is no worldwide consensus as to how to regulate GM crops or livestock, and depending on the political, social and economic climate within a region or country, the government oversight and opinion varies. In Europe, for example, anti-GM activists are particularly vocal. GM crops are today very rare in Europe. In 2003, the European Union adopted regulations establishing an EU-wide system to trace and label GMOs and to regulate the sale and labeling of food derived from them, although this legislation did put an end to the ‘de facto’ moratorium on approving new GM products for the European market, which had been in place since 1998. Regardless, these strict labeling laws and regulations ensure that GM crops don’t hit stores easily. These include systematic genetic testing for GMOs using DNA barcoding technology and assurance that non-GM crops do not mix with GM ones.

In the United States, however, GMOs are much more common. The regulation is confusing because the EPA, USDA, and FDA all deal with different facets of GMOs. In short, the EPA evaluates GM plants for environmental safety, the USDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to grow, and the FDA evaluates whether the plant is safe to eat. This means that the EPA is responsible for testing and regulating GMOs with pesticides or toxins that may cause harm to the environment, like Bt corn, but not those that are modified only nutritionally or for other reasons like disease resistance. The USDA picks up where the EPA leaves off, including drought-tolerant or disease-tolerant crops, crops grown for animal feeds, or any fruits, vegetables and grains for human consumption. In general, the FDA focuses more on parts of things, not whole products. A box of cereal containing GM corn is regulated by the FDA, but the whole ear would be regulated by the USDA or EPA. In general, exactly what the FDA regulates with regards to GM foods is uncertain and confusing.

To protect the environment and other creatures, the EPA conducts risk assessment studies on pesticides and establishes tolerance and residue levels for them. These regulations aren’t just GM-oriented – there are strict limits on the amount of pesticides applied to crops during growth and production, the amount that remains in the food after processing, licensing for pesticides used and directions for how to use them to meet the EPA’s safety standards. Inspectors periodically visit farms and conduct investigations to ensure compliance.

When it comes to GMOs, for example, the EPA requires that growers have a license to grow modified crops, and requires those that do also plant 20%-50% unmodified versions to prevent insects from developing resistance to the pesticides as well as provide a refuge for non-target insects. The USDA has all kinds of specialized groups that share responsibility for assessing and monitoring GM foods, including the the Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, which conducts field tests and issues permits to grow GM crops, the Agricultural Research Service, which performs the GM food research done by the USDA, and the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service which oversees the USDA risk assessment program. In general, these groups check whether GMOs harbor pests, act as weeds, or harm native species that surround planted areas, including the effects of escaped GMOs. Depending on their findings, these groups can stop the production or movement of anything deemed unacceptable, and can even destroy anything that is in violation if their regulations.

Under USDA regulation, a GM plant does not require a permit if it meets six criteria:

1. Is not a noxious weed
2. Has whatever genetic material that was introduced stably integrated into the plant’s own genome
3. The function of the introduced gene is known and does not cause plant disease
4. Is not toxic to non-target organisms
5. Will not cause the creation of new plant viruses
6. Does not genetic material from animal or human pathogen

Once the food is grown and processed somehow to be used in food, it’s the FDA’s problem. In my opinion, it is here, at the FDA level, that the US has failed to adequately regulate and monitor GMOs, and this failure is partly at fault for the negative attitude towards GMOs held by many. By FDA regulations, agri-biotech companies may voluntarily ask the FDA for a consultation, including the evaluation of how eating the product affects people. Companies working to create new GM foods are not required to consult the FDA, nor are they required to follow the FDA’s recommendations after the consultation.

The FDA does not demand special labeling of GM foods, as the FDA contends that GMOs are “substantially equivalent” to non-GMOs and are “generally recognized as safe”. The FDA could do a lot better, and needs to. How can consumers trust in a regulatory system that basically says regulation isn’t necessary? Here is where the politicians need to step in and demand more efficient, required testing of GM foods. Doing so might slow down the release of GM products, but it will give the public a reason to trust that when those products are released, that they really are “substantially equivalent.” In other countries there is even more variation in how GMOs are regulated. Some completely ban GMOs, not even allowing them to be tested and evaluated. Others plant them vigorously with no concerns towards their safety. What we need is a worldwide set of regulations that ensures the quality, environmental safety, and lack of adverse health effects of any GMO eaten by people.

A Quick Run-Down of the Pros and Cons

To try and explain the entirety of the debate on GMOs would take an entire book or two. But, for your edification, here’s a cliff notes version:

Potential Benefits of GMOs

• In Agriculture:
  • Increase productivity by reducing maturation time, increasing resistance to pests, disease, environmental stressors (like drought) or herbicides
  • Enhanced taste and quality, including added vitamins and minerals to increase the nutritional value of foods
  • Other new products and growing techniques that take less space or energy and have reduced environmental impacts
• Using Animals
  • Breakthroughs in biological and medical technologies through research
  • Increased resistance, productivity, hardiness, and feed efficiency of food animals
  • Better yields of meat, eggs, and milk
  • Increased nutritional value of food animals
  • Improved animal health including resistance to diseases and parasites
• To The Environment
  • Bioherbicides and bioinsecticides that have negligable impacts
  • Conservation of soil, water, and energy
  • Bioprocessing of waste, improving waste management
• To Society
  • Increased food security and nutritional needs met for growing populations
  • Better and more affordable medical treatments for tough or incurable diseases

The Things People Worry About With GMOs

• Safety
  • Potential human health impacts of eating GMOs, including allergic reactions, transfer of antibiotic resistance markers and other unknown effects
  • Potential environmental impacts, including transfer of transgenes through cross-pollination, unknown effects on other organisms, and loss of flora and fauna biodiversity
• Who Owns It?
  • World food production by a few companies (like Monsanto), and the problems of monopolies on food
  • Increased dependence on industrialized nations by developing countries
  • Rich nations getting the majority of the benefits, advances skewed to interests of rich countries
• Ethical Questions
  • Whether “unnatural” is bad or the violation of natural organisms’ intrinsic values
  • “Playing God” or tampering with nature by mixing genes among species, particularly animal genes in plants and vice versa
• Labeling
  • Lack of choice in consumption due to poor or no labelling
  • Mixing GM crops with non-GM crops

Hopefully, this list, combined with the information above, can give you some basis for your own opinions on GMOs. When arguing about genetic modification, remember that it’s not all about food – this technology is used for far more than Bt crops and fast-growing fish. Now that you have the back story, you can better understand the different sides of the GMO debate.

The Future of GMOs: My Two Cents

What lies ahead for genetically modified organisms is uncertain. A lot of it depends on public opinion, which, right now, is extremely negative. There are definitely some concerns with GMOs that need to be addressed, including their potential interactions with wildlife and native plants, the societal issues of who owns GMOs and who benefits from them, and the ability of consumers to make informed decisions when it comes to their food. But it seems that most who dislike the idea of GMOs have few facts and don’t think of the many other uses of GMOs besides Frankenfood. Just look at the list of negatives – almost none apply to GMOs for use in biomedical research. Yet legislation seeks to prevent all GMOs wholesale – laws which would hinder medical advances. Anti-GMO feelings are spurred onwards by those who fear that by altering the genetic makeup of creatures, we are, in essence, playing God. It’s a line of thinking that feels anything unnatural is therefore unsafe – an entire culture of thought that thinks that anything produced by science or technology is automatically bad.

Let me just share my two cents on this mode of thinking: first off, nothing about our lives is “natural”. We build things out of reinforced steel and other metals that never occur naturally. Houses never form in the wild, nor do clothes. X-ray machines don’t occur spontaneously, nor do heart transplants. So if you’re really dedicated to living naturally, you’ve got to rethink a lot more than GMOs. Secondly, we have been messing with creatures’ genetics and “playing God” for centuries. Over 50 million of us worldwide proudly own the products of this genetic manipulation – you might call them pets. Dogs, for example, have more physical variation within their species than there is in the entire rest of the order of carnivores. In other words, a pug’s skull is more different from a pit bull’s than a mouse’s is from a bear’s. If that’s not some serious genetic manipulation, I don’t know what is. We’ve bred not just different varieties of one species to create ideal plants, we’ve bred together different species, and long before we could do it with genetic engineering. Changing creatures’ genetics to suit our desires is nothing new. Thirdly, the transfer of genes from one organism to a wholly unrelated organism isn’t unnatural. Yeah, I know, the way we do it is, but it’s not like it’s never happened before in nature. Viruses and bacteria donate their genes to other creatures all the time – that’s why their machinery is often used to do genetic engineering. Even the transfer of genes between higher-order animals isn’t unheard of. We’ve found plant genes in sea slugs, for example – which is really, unbelievably cool, by the way.

I’m not saying that we should all just go out and blindly trust Monsanto and the other GM producers. We shouldn’t just shovel GMOs down our throats and presume they’re safe and better for us. That’s what science is for – to test this kind of thing. Have the lawmakers make stricter regulations regarding the safety evaluation of GMOs. Let scientists study and debate GMOs until they feel like they’re beating a dead FrankenHorse. Let it take years and years for these products to be tested, evaluated, and released. But don’t stop them from being created. Don’t make laws that outlaw the GMOs that are so vital to biomedical research because of fear. The reason Monsanto has a near-monopoly is because we stifle smaller companies and universities from competing with them, competition which is not only healthy but necessary – and we can fix that. In the end, the global benefits of the GMOs of the future are too great to be prevented by idealized notions of a natural world, and this is coming from an ecologist. Progress isn’t a dirty word, no matter what you hear, and we should be excited about the amazing possibilities that ever advancing technologies afford us.

GM Plants

The small group of GMOs that are well-known and hotly debated are those used in agriculture. While many seem to argue whether or not they should exist, the fact is genetically modified crops are already all over the place. In 2006, for example, 252 million acres of transgenic crops were farmed in 22 countries by 10 million farmers. Of these, 53% were grown in the United States, where the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) keeps a close watch on the total area of GMO seeds planted. Genetically modified plants totaled as high as 86 percent of corn, 90 percent of the soybean, and 93 percent of upland cotton planted (by area).

It’s not just developed nations that are growing GMOs: according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), 90% of the GMO-growing farmers in 2005 were resource-poor farmers in developing countries. So what, exactly, are these farmers planting? The majority are soybeans, corn, cotton, canola and alfalfa that carry genes that either make them tolerant to the herbicides glufosinate and glyphosate or produce the insecticide Bt toxin, a compound originally from bacteria that is a widely used pesticide by organic farmers.

Why should we want GM foods around in the first place? For one, they have the potential to make the production of certain crops cheaper and even more environmentally friendly. But really, what we have done so far is child’s play compared to what we may be able to do in the near future with GM crops.

On the horizon are a variety of crops that could revolutionize agriculture, and not just in cost-saving ways like insecticides and herbicides. Sweet potatoes are being engineered to be resistant to a virus that currently decimates the African harvest every year, which could feed millions in some of the poorest nations in the world. Rice is being created which is high in iron and vitamins to supplement the diet of the malnourished masses in many areas. Similarly, scientists have created carrots high in calcium to fight osteoperosis, and tomatoes high in antioxidants. Almost as important as what we can put into a plant is what we can take out; potatoes are being modified so that they do not produce high concentrations of toxic glycoalkaloids, and nuts are being engineered to lack the proteins which cause allergic reactions in most people.

Even more amazingly, bananas are being engineered to produce vaccines against hepititis B, allowing vaccination to occur where its otherwise too expensive or difficult to be administered. Just for the record, not all GM crops are made to be eaten; some trees, for example, are being modified to produce plastics, of all things. The benefits these plants could provide to human beings all over the planet are astronomical.

GM Animals

Most genetically modified animals are used for scientific research, as I explained in the first segment of this series. But GM animals don’t just live in labs. The first GM animals for commercial sale were glow in the dark zebra fish, now quite popular in freshwater aquariums (you might call them GloFish). GM animals aren’t just for show, though – some are making their way onto our dinner plates. Like for their floral counterparts, the use genetically modified animals as food is hotly debated.

Right now, the most likely GM animals on the verge of wide-scale sale are fish. Fish are becoming more and more popular as a source for protein. By 2015, it’s expected that the world demand for fish and fish products will expand by 50 million tonnes to over 180 million tonnes per year. That is a lot of fish. As worldwide fish stocks continue to collapse, it’s expected that much of this will come from aquaculture, and GM fish are ready to swim into the market through these farms. Aquabounty Inc., for example, has developed genetically modified salmon called AquAdvantage, which are capable of reaching maturity twice as fast as their unmodified counterparts. Similarly, transgenic sockeye salmon have been given an extra growth boost, as have transgenic carp and tilapia. These animals have yet to hit supermarket shelves because of concerns not only for their safety to humans but also their ecological safety to their wild counterparts should some escape.

Already, non-transgenic farm fish pose threats to some species of fish, and studies have found that the offspring between enhanced and wild fish are compromised compared to natural offspring. Those in favor of GM fish, however, say that these farms can be restricted to land-locked areas to reduce risk, that the GM fish can be sterilized, and that the benefits of these faster-growing fish overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. Fish aren’t the only animals being modified for food. Farmed mammals, too, are being genetically modified. Cows are being created which increase the calcium content of their milk by producing more casein proteins.

Pigs are popular targets: some are being cloned to produce omega-3 fatty acids which are normally found in fish, and separately others are being modified to express a phytase which breaks down phosphorus to reduce the environmental impact of their feed. Pigs are even being engineered to contain high vitamin C levels. Transgenic chickens now express an enzyme so they can eat lactose-containing feed, widening their possible food options. While these animals aren’t for sale yet, either, they have the potential to make meats more affordable, more environmentally friendly, and more nutritious. Unlike plants, GM animals are not widely available or currently on supermarket shelves. However, that is expected to change in the near future, once further tests have been done to determine their safety.

GM Foods and Us

The major concern that most of us have is whether GM crops are safe. It is, literally, a billion dollar question. The vast majority of the anti-GMO platform is that they’re not. The main basis of this opinion is that because GMOs contain genes that produce proteins otherwise never found in a given food, they are likely to be dangerous. For example, foreign protein products may cause allergic reactions in people.

A case often cited as proof that GMOs are inherently dangerous is Pioneer Hi-Bred’s GM soybeans that were being developed in the ’90s. Pioneer Hi-Bred introduced genes from Brazil nuts into soybeans to increase the level of sulphur-rich amino acids. While the product was intended for animal feed, not human consumption, it became clear during testing that the nut protein that was being transferred was an allergen to humans. Because of this, the company discontinued development. People also believe that, since many plants are being engineered to produce pesticides, the overall consumption of these health hazards will be increased if GMOs are eaten regularly.

As it stands, the science is mixed, but most supports that these foods do not cause adverse health affects. Feeding trials have found little to no toxic effects and studies have documented that GM foods have the same nutritional qualities as unmodified versions. Perhaps the most supportive evidence of GM crops’ safety, though, is simply that we’ve been eating them for 15 years in the US and have yet to see population-wide adverse effects. Despite the evidence towards their safety, public support for GM crops remains low, and many say that we can’t really know whether they’re safe with the tests that are done now.

To that end, there is a lot of variety in the regulations and studies of the effects of eating GMOs (I’ll explain that in my next post). Many, including myself, believe that more rigorous and standardized testing is necessary, as it would build consumer confidence in the safety evaluations and lead to much wider spread acceptance of GM foods.

The GM Debate

While I understand the worry about Frakenfoods, I think it’s important to look at the bigger picture. DNA is a part of our diet. We eat millions of copies of thousands of genes every day, most of which science has yet to determine the products of. We breathe in even more microorganisms and other microscopic creatures that have all kinds of unknown proteins in them, and we rarely stop to worry if they will have an adverse impact on our health. Moreover, we do eat many of the genes being transferred around between GM species. The fact is, most proteins get chewed up beyond recognition in our stomachs (this is why most health supplements don’t actually work).

We must take the debate about the development of GMOs very seriously, and critically analyze the risks that come with them. But at the same time, we must also avoid being hysterical about the issue, and tackle the assurance of their safety with science and reason instead of rhetoric. To that end, we must ensure that they are safe via thorough testing and regulation. What are we doing about that?

Next post I’ll explain the complex system that is GMO regulation, particularly in the US, so you can have a better idea about what analysis GM products go through before they end up on supermarket shelves.

In the past year or two, certified organic sales have jumped around 30% to about $52 billion (2008 dollars) worldwide despite the fact that organic foods cost up to three times as much as those produced by conventional methods. More and more, people are shelling out their hard-earned cash for Certified Organic. Imagine, people say: you can improve your nutrition while helping save the planet from the evils of conventional agriculture – a complete win-win. And who wouldn’t buy organic, when it just sounds so good?

Here’s the thing: here are a lot of myths out there about organic foods, and a lot of propaganda supporting methods that are rarely understood. It’s like your mother used to say: just because everyone is jumping off a bridge doesn’t mean you should do it, too. Now, before I get yelled at too much, let me state that I’m not trying to say that organic farming is bad – far from it. There are some definite upsides and benefits that come from many organic farming methods. For example, the efforts of organic farmers to move away from monocultures, where crops are farmed in single-species plots, are fantastic; crop rotations and mixed planting are much better for the soil and environment than conventional monocultures. Instead, I only want to point out that not everything is as it seems. So here are some of the myths of organic produce, and the realities behind them.

Myth: Organic Foods Are Free From Pesticides And Harmful Chemicals

The number one reason that I hear as to why to eat organic foods is that they have no pesticides or harmful compounds. I hate to burst your bubble, but that’s simply not true. Organic farming, just like other forms of agriculture, still uses pesticides and fungicides to prevent critters from destroying their crops. Confused?

So was I, when I first learned this from my boyfriend. His family owns a farm in rural Ohio (a farm which isn’t organic simply because they use a non-organic herbicide once a year, though they use absolutely no pesticides). The local organic farms, he explained, spray their crops all the time with a variety of chemicals. I didn’t believe him at first, so I looked into it: turns out that there are over 20 chemicals commonly used in the growing and processing of organic crops that are approved by the US Organic Standards. And, shockingly, the actual volume usage of pesticides on organic farms is not recorded by the government. Why the government isn’t keeping watch on organic pesticide and fungicide use is a damn good question, especially considering that many organic pesticides that are also used by conventional farmers are used more intensively than synthetic ones due to their lower levels of effectiveness. According to the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, the top two organic fungicides, copper and sulfur, were used at a rate of 4 and 34 pounds per acre in 1971 [1]. In contrast, the synthetic fungicides only required a rate of 1.6 lbs per acre, less than half the amount of the organic alternatives.

The sad truth is, factory farming is factory farming, whether its organic or conventional. Many large organic farms use pesticides liberally. They’re organic by certification, but you’d never know it if you saw their farming practices. As Michael Pollan, best-selling book author and organic supporter, said in an interview with Organic Gardening,

“They’re organic by the letter, not organic in spirit… if most organic consumers went to those places, they would feel they were getting ripped off.”

What makes organic farming different, then? It’s not the use of pesticides, it’s the origin of the pesticides used. Organic pesticides are those that are derived from natural sources and processed lightly if at all before use. This is different than the current pesticides used by conventional agriculture, which are generally synthetic. It has been assumed for years that pesticides that occur naturally (in certain plants, for example) are somehow better for us and the environment than those that have been created by man. As more research is done into their toxicity, however, this simply isn’t true, either. Many natural pesticides have been found to be as bad if not worse than synthetic ones 2.

Take the example of Rotenone. Rotenone was widely used in the US as an organic pesticide for decades 3. Because it is natural in origin, occurring in the roots and stems of a small number of subtropical plants, it was considered “safe” as well as “organic“. However, research has shown that rotenone is highly dangerous because it kills by attacking the mitochondria, the energy powerhouses of all living cells. Research found that exposure to rotenone caused Parkinson’s Disease-like symptoms in rats 4, and killed many species, including humans. Rotenone’s use as a pesticide has already been discontinued in the US as of 2005 due to health concerns, but shockingly, it’s still poured into our waters every year because it is approved for fisheries management use as a piscicide to remove unwanted fish species. The point I’m driving home here is that just because something is natural doesn’t make it non-toxic or safe. Many bacteria, fungi and plants produce poisons, toxins and chemicals that you wouldn’t want sprayed on your food.

Just this year, nearly half of the pesticides that are currently approved for use by organic farmers in Europe failed to pass the European Union’s safety evaluation that is required by law 5. Among the chemicals failing the test was rotenone, as it has yet to be banned in Europe. Furthermore, just over 1% of organic foods produced in 2007 that were tested by the European Food Safety Authority were found to contain pesticide levels above the legal maximum levels – and these are of pesticides that are not organic 6. Similarly, when Consumer Reports purchased a thousand pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and apples in five cities and tested them for more than 300 synthetic pesticides, they found traces of them in 25% of the organically-labeled foods, but between all of the organic and non-organic foods tested, only one sample of each exceeded the federal limits 8. The scary truth is that you’re exposed to bad chemicals every day when you drink water out of a plastic bottle (see our series Plastic Troubles if you want to learn more).

That said, those who do eat organic can take to heart that many smaller farms use few to no pesticides, and overall, organic foods do usually contain lower levels of pesticides than conventional foods. If, as time wears on, we find that the pesticides used by modern agriculture are more dangerous than we think, then it may be a good thing that so many of us are eating Certified Organic.

But, there is another problem: even those organic farms which really do use less or no pesticides aren’t necessarily producing food that is free from harmful things. Between 1990 and 2001, over 10,000 people fell ill due to foods contaminated with pathogens like E. coli. One study found E. coli in produce from almost 10% of organic farms samples, but only 2% of conventional ones 9. The same study also found Salmonella only in samples from organic farms, though at a low prevalence rate. The reason for the higher pathogen prevalence is likely due to the use of manure instead of artificial fertilizers. Many pathogens are spread through fecal contamination. Conventional farms often use manure, too, but they use irradiation and a full array of anti-microbial agents, and without those, organic foods run a higher risk of containing something that will make a person sick.

In the end, it really depends on exactly what methods are used by crop producers. Both organic and conventional farms vary widely in this respect. My boyfriend’s family farm, for example, is “conventional,” but they use absolutely no pesticides, synthetic or otherwise. Some organic farms spray their crops twice a month. Of course, some conventional farms spray just as frequently, if not more so, and some organic farms use no pesticides whatsoever. It’s best if you know your source, and a great way to do that is to buy locally. Talk to the person behind the crop stand, and actually ask them what their methods are if you want to be sure of what you’re eating.

Myth: Organic Foods Are More Nutritious

Some people believe that by not using manufactured chemicals or genetically modified organisms, organic farming produces more nutritious food. However, science simply cannot find any evidence that organic foods are in any way healthier than non-organic ones – and scientists have been comparing the two for 50 years now.

Just recently, an independent research project in the UK systematically reviewed the 162 articles on organic versus non-organic crops published in peer-reviewed journals between 1958 and 2008 10. These contained a total of 3558 comparisons of content of nutrients and other substances in organically and conventionally produced foods. They found absolutely no evidence for any differences in content of over 15 different nutrients including vitamin C, β-carotene, and calcium. There were some differences, though; conventional crops had higher nitrogen levels, while organic ones had higher phosphorus and acidity – none of which factor in much to nutritional quality. Further analysis of similar studies on livestock products like meat, dairy, and eggs also found few differences in nutritional content. Organic foods did, however, have higher levels of overall fats, particularly trans fats. So if anything, the organic livestock products were found to be worse for us (though, to be fair, barely).

“This is great news for consumers. It proves that the 98% of food we consume, which is produced by technologically advanced agriculture, is equally nutritious to the less than 2% derived from what is commonly referred to as the ‘organic’ market,” said Fredhelm Schmider, the Director General of the European Crop Protection Association said in a press release about the findings11.

Simply put by the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, “there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that organic food in general is more or less safe or nutritious than conventionally produced foods” 12.

Furthermore, while up to 43% of organic consumers buy organic foods because they believe they “taste better” than conventionally produced crops, studies have found that people can’t tell the difference between the two in blind taste tests 13.

So organics are not better for us and we can’t tell the difference between them and non-organic foods. There may be many things that are good about organic farming, from increased biodiversity on farms to movement away from monocultures, but producing foods that are healthier and tastier simply isn’t one of its pluses.

Myth: Organic Farming Is Better For The Environment

As an ecologist by training, this myth bothers me the most of all three. People seem to believe they’re doing the world a favor by eating organic. The simple fact is that they’re not – at least not necessarily.

True, organic farming practices use less synthetic pesticides which have been universally found to be ecologically damaging. But factory organic farms use their own barrage of chemicals that are still ecologically damaging, and refuse to endorse technologies that might reduce or eliminate the use of these all together. Take, for example, organic farming’s adamant stance against genetically modified organisms (GMOs). GMOs have the potential to up crop yields, increase nutritious value, and generally improve farming practices while reducing synthetic chemical use – which is exactly what organic farming seeks to do.

But then hypocrisy steps in. Organic farmers apply Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin (a small insecticidal protein from soil bacteria) unabashedly across their crops every year, as they have for decades. It’s one of the most widely used organic pesticides by organic farmers. Yet when genetic engineering is used to place the gene encoding the Bt toxin into a plant’s genome, the resulting GM plants are vilified by the very people willing to liberally spray the exact same toxin that the gene encodes for over the exact same species of plant. Ecologically, the GMO is a far better solution, as it reduces the amount of toxin being used and thus leeching into the surrounding landscape and waterways. Other GMOs have similar goals; making rice flood-tolerant so occasional flooding can replace herbicide use as a means of killing weeds, for example.

But the real reason organic farming isn’t more green than conventional is that it’s far less productive. Organic farming yields only around 80% the amount of conventional methods (some studies place organic yields below 50% those of conventional farms!). Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we’re using now. But what’s far more likely is that switches to organic farming will result in the creation of new farms via the destruction of untouched habitats. And organic farming has another spacial price – by relying on natural fertilizers, it requires more land for the animals that produce those fertilizers. Already, we have cleared more than 35% of the Earth’s ice-free land surface for agriculture, an area 60 times larger than the combined area of all the world’s cities and suburbs combined. Since the last ice age, nothing has been more disruptive to the planet’s ecosystem and its inhabitants than agriculture. What will happen to what’s left of our planet’s wildlife habitats if we need to mow down another 10% or more of the world’s ice-free land to accommodate for organic methods?

The unfortunate truth is that until organic farming can rival the production output of conventional farming, its ecological cost due to the need for space is devastating. As bad as any of the pesticides and fertilizers polluting the world’s waterways from conventional agriculture are, it’s a far better ecological situation than destroying those key habitats all together. That’s not to say that there’s no hope for organic farming; better technology could overcome the production gap, allowing organic methods to produce on par with conventional agriculture. If that does occur, then organic agriculture becomes a lot more ecologically sustainable. And in the small scale, particularly in areas where food surpluses already occur, organic farming could be beneficial. But presuming it’s the end all be all of sustainable agriculture is a mistake.

The Battle Rages On

The point of this piece isn’t to vilify organic farming; it’s merely to point out that it’s not as black and white as it looks. Organic farming does have many potential upsides, and may indeed be the better way to go in the long run, but it really depends on technology and what we discover and learn in the future. Until organic farming can produce crops on par in terms of volume with conventional methods, it cannot be considered a viable option for the majority of the world. Nutritionally speaking, organic food is more like a brand name or luxury item. It’s great if you can afford the higher price and want to have it, but it’s not a panacea. You would improve your nutritional intake far more by eating a larger volume of fruits and vegetables than by eating organic ones instead of conventionally produced ones.

What bothers me most, however, is that both sides on the organic debate spend millions in press and advertising to attack each other instead of looking for a resolution. Organic supporters tend to vilify new technologies, while conventional supporters insist that chemicals and massive production monocultures are the only way to go. This simply strikes me as absurd. Synthetic doesn’t necessarily mean bad for the environment. Just look at technological advances in creating biodegradable products; sometimes, we can use our knowledge and intelligence to create things that are both useful, cheap (enough) and ecologically responsible, as crazy as that idea may sound.

But I also firmly believe that increasing the chemicals used in agriculture to support insanely over-harvested monocultures will never lead to ecological improvement. In my mind, the ideal future will merge conventional and organic methods, using GMOs and/or other new technologies to reduce pesticide use while increasing the bioavailability of soils, crop yield, nutritional quality and biodiversity in agricultural lands. New technology isn’t the enemy of organic farming; it should be its strongest ally. It continues to bother me that both sides refuse to discuss the idea of a middle ground.

As it stands now, to be honest, if you want to eat the healthiest food for you that has the least environmental impact, buy local produce. Smaller farms, like the one owned by my boyfriend’s family, often use less pesticides and take better care of their land and crops. Also, one of the biggest environmental impacts of both conventional and organic farming is the transport of foodstuffs to the consumer. Even the most ecologically responsible farms have to ship their products to grocery stores. By buying foods produced locally instead, where we can talk to the growers and learn exactly what is in the food we’re buying, we can dramatically reduce the impact of agriculture on our environment and still get meals jam-packed with nutrition. See? There is a win-win solution after all!

References

. National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, National Pesticide Use Database. Available from http://www.ncfap.org (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
. Gold, L., Slone, T., Stern, B., Manley, N., & Ames, B. (1992). Rodent carcinogens: setting priorities Science, 258 (5080), 261-265 DOI: 10.1126/science.1411524
. Rotenone: Resource Guide for Organic and Disease Management. Cornell University. Available at www.nysaes.cornell.edu/pp/resourceguide/mfs/11rotenone.php (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
. Caboni, P., Sherer, T., Zhang, N., Taylor, G., Na, H., Greenamyre, J., & Casida, J. (2004). Rotenone, Deguelin, Their Metabolites, and the Rat Model of Parkinson’s Disease Chemical Research in Toxicology, 17 (11), 1540-1548 DOI: 10.1021/tx049867r
. EFSA 2009. Pesticides used in organic farming: some pass and some fail safety authorization. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009).
. Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the 2007 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues. EFSA Scientific Report (2009) 305, 1-106
. Consumer Reports 1998. Organic produce. Consumer Reports 63(1), 12-18.
. FDA Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (2000). Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 1999. Available at http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
. Mukherjee A, Speh D, Dyck E, & Diez-Gonzalez F (2004). Preharvest evaluation of coliforms, Escherichia coli, Salmonella, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in organic and conventional produce grown by Minnesota farmers. Journal of food protection, 67 (5), 894-900 PMID: 15151224
. Dangour, A., Dodhia, S., Hayter, A., Aikenhead, A., Allen, E., Lock, K. & Uauy, R. 2009. Comparison of composition (nutrients and other substances) of organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs: a systematic review of the available literature. Food Standards Agency (UK).
. EFSA 2009. Study finds no additional nutritional benefit in “organic” food. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Available from: www.ecpa.eu (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
. NZFSA 2009. Safety of organic food. Food Focus February 2009. New Zealand Food Safety Authority (NZFSA). Available from: www.nzfsa.govt.nz (Viewed 19 Nov, 2009)
. Fillion, L., & Arazi, S. (2002). Does organic food taste better? A claim substantiation approach Nutrition & Food Science, 32 (4), 153-157 DOI: 10.1108/00346650210436262

And the choices you make when it comes to your dinner, particularly which fish you pick for the 16 pounds of seafood the average American eats every year, drive the fisheries hauling in over 11 billion pounds of fish annually. And that’s just for the US alone.

Choices make a difference, not only from an economic perspective, but from a nutritional and ecological one. So, the short answer to logic of sustainable seafood is that your choice drives markets. The long answer is that it’s good for you and it’s good for the environment – a clear win-win. After all, you wouldn’t be on a nutrition site if you weren’t looking to eat and be healthier, right? So why not eat in a way that’s healthier for yourself and the rest of the ecosystem?

Making the Smart Choice: Seafood and Nutrition

You know that you’ve made a nutritional choice when you decide to buy that bag of apples instead of a bag of Doritos. But did you know that you made a nutritional choice when you picked salmon instead of tuna? A lot of nutrition talk just refers to “fish”, as if all fish are the same nutritionally.

But, you say, that’s true. After all, fish is fish… right?

Well, it’s partially true. All fish, from anchovies to yellowtail, have a few key nutritional ingredients that are fantastic for you. The American Heart Association, for example, recommends that we eat fish at least two times per week for a healthy heart.

For one, fish are a great source of protein that contain far less fats than other meats like beef and pork. They are a complete protein, which means that they contain all of the essential amino acids that we need to eat in our diet. Why is protein so great?

As I’ve said before, protein and the amino acids it contains are key to making our bodies function properly. Protein calories also make us feel fuller, longer compared to calories from fat or carbohydrates, thus allowing us to eat less.

Fish are also great sources of Omega-3 Fatty Acids, a group of unsaturated fatty acids that have been linked to all kinds of health benefits, from reduced cancer risk to increased intelligence. While we tend to demonize fats, the truth is that some are good for us, and Omega-3s are among the good guys. In fact, they’re so good for the brain that the Rush Institute for Healthy Aging claims that people who eat at least one meal of fish per week will be significantly less likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease than those who never eat fish – a statement that, at least in part, is backed by science.

When a Fish Isn’t Just a Fish

But not all fish are the same – not even close. Just like lamb, beef, and venison all have differing amounts of protein, fat and calories, so, too, do different species of fish. Sockeye salmon will get you 3.8 grams of protein per ounce, while a nice tuna steak provides 9 grams per ounce. A skinless, 3 oz portion of Halibut will run you 110 calories, with 20 of them coming from fat, but the same portion of Mackerel will give you a whopping 210 calories with 120 of them from fat. That’s a difference of 100 calories from fat alone in a single piece of fish!

Before you freak out about the high fat content, note that while Omega-3 fatty acids are found in every kind of fish, they are especially high in fatty fish. That Halibut only contains 0.7 grams of Omega-3s, while the fatty Mackerel has 2.6 grams. As with anything else, it’s all about balance, and getting the right amount of fat and protein into your diet, not aiming for the lowest-fat option.

Not even all types of similar or even the same fish are created equal: take tuna for example. Buy canned light tuna, and you’re looking at about 33 calories and 7.2 grams of protein per ounce. Canned white albacore, however, contains roughly 37 calories and only 6.8 grams of protein per ounce, plus an extra 0.8 grams of fat. Opt for a cooked tuna steak and you end up with 40 calories, 9 grams of protein, and 0.5 grams of fat per ounce. Even your choice of tuna sashimi makes a difference: Bluefin will net you just over ten more calories and one gram of fat per ounce than Ahi. Though these might seem small, scientists have found that even a change of 100 calories a day can impact your weight dramatically. Subbing in Bluefin for Ahi at a ten-ounce tuna meal is enough to make a difference.

Fish Toxicology

There are issues far worse than protein and calorie counts to think of when choosing fish. That’s because, unfortunately, fish are the final resting places for many of the chemicals that we pollute our waters with everyday. Water treatment has lowered the levels of some of these, but the problem is that fish biaccumulate these toxins. Bioaccumulation occurs when a substance is absorbed or stored at a faster rate than it is lost, causing it to ‘accumulate’ in the body. Thus, smaller environmental levels can become higher ones in the body.

The analogy I used before when explaining bioaccumulations is with drinking alcohol: normally, you can drink one beer in an hour and be fine. Drink twenty in an hour, and you probably will experience acute alcohol poisoning, but assuming you recover, you’ll again be fairly fine (minus some liver damage). But instead, imagine if every time you had a drink, your body simply couldn’t get rid of the alcohol, and it lingered in your tissues. You could have only one drink a week, but still within a few weeks, you’d be drunk all the time.

That’s how bioaccumulation works. The fish’s body removes the toxins at such a slow rate (or not at all) that they build up to much higher concentrations than are found in the water around them. And it gets worst as you go up the food chain – those fish at the bottom get a certain level of toxin, but then they’re eaten by bigger fish. When that big fish eats 10 little fish, suddenly it has 10x the concentration of toxins that the little ones did, and so on and so forth to the top of the chain (here’s a hint – that’s where we fit into the food web).

Toxins that are particularly dangerous in fish include many of the chemicals in plastics (see our previous details on the nutritional consequences of PBDEs, Phthalates and BPA) as well as many others caused by industrial and agricultural pollution, like DDT. One of the major toxins that fish bioaccumulate is mercury, which is released from the process we use to turn coal into energy. Mercury levels in fish can be so high that the FDA and EPA monitor the levels in common varieties of fish to set healthy safety standards.

Already, there are a number of fish that have such high mercury levels that they are considered unsafe to be consumed by pregnant women. These include:

• sharks
• king mackerel
• swordfish
• tilefish.

But even those that are commonly found on our dinner plates can be high in mercury. Sushi tuna, for example, is one of the worst offenders; it can have up to 0.64 parts per million of mercury, which is only a hair under the 0.73 found in king mackerel. Mercury levels are high enough in fish to trouble even healthy, non-pregnant adults. Just ask Jeremy Piven – he was diagnosed with a blood mercury level six times above the upper limit of safety while working on a Broadway show after regularly consuming sushi with tuna in it.

When thinking about the nutritional side of choosing fish, you have to weigh the good with the bad. While swordfish is high in Omega-3s, for example, its mercury level is enough to strike it off the ‘healthiest options’ list (although the EPA give the green light to anyone who isn’t pregnant, planning to become pregnant or nursing to eat up to 7 ounces of high-mercury fish per week, if you want to trust them). You want something that contains what’s good for you and as little of what’s bad for you as possible. It should be the same with sustainability. You can pick fish that are good for you and good for the environment – you just have to know which ones to choose.

Making the Even Smarter Choice: Seafood and Sustainability

Since you already have a lot to consider nutritionally when choosing seafood, why should you add sustainability into the mix? Well, the easy answer is you have to, if you want your children and grandchildren to be able to enjoy the same healthy choices you can now. The global catch of wild fish leveled off over 20 years ago and 70% percent of the world’s fisheries are being harvested at capacity or are in decline. It’s estimated that we’ve removed over 90% of the large predatory fish like sharks from the world’s oceans already, and some of the biggest fisheries are on the verge of complete collapse. But perhaps the simplest reason as to why you should factor sustainability into your seafood choices is that it’s easy to and, to boot, still good for you.

Part of why nutrition and sustainability fit so well together is that those fish that tend to be high in toxins just happen to be those that we’ve overfished. You see, bioaccumulation is a time-consuming process. The older and larger a fish is, the more toxins it’s likely to have bioaccumulated. In general, this means that the biggest fish in the sea that are highest up on the food chain are the most likely to have the highest mercury levels.

But the biggest predatory fish are also the slowest growing and least able to rebound from intense fishing pressure. They’re the ones that take years to develop into maturity and have fewer offspring than their smaller cousins. It’s like comparing rabbits to moose – if you have a population of rabbits and you take away half of them, you might not even notice that any were taken once they’re done breeding like, well, rabbits. But take away half of a population of moose and it may take years for them to replace their lost numbers.

While most of what we hear about the fishing industry is doom and gloom when it comes to being eco-consious, there are fisheries being run in a sustainable way. The more we purchase from those fisheries, and not from the other ones, the more we will pressure the remaining industries to improve their practices and solve the most pressing issues, including overfishing, illegal and unregulated fishing, habitat damage, bycatch and poor management.

So how do you know what fish to buy?

Just ask the Monterrey Bay Aqauarium. Born out of a modest exhibition called “Fishing for Solutions,” the Monterrey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch Program is one of the largest and most extensive sustainable seafood programs out there. They provide pocket guides for all over the United States that give a simple classification to the types of seafood you’re likely to see in your area. They break fish options into three categories: Green for Best Choices, Yellow for Good Alternatives, and Red for those to Avoid. At the grocery store in California and can’t decide between Rainbow Trout and Monkfish? Check the colors. Green means go on the trout!

These simple categories factor in all kinds of information, from stock status and vulnerability to fishing pressure to the nature and extent of the bycatch created by the fishing method. And they aren’t limited to rating just wild-caught species. Aquacultures and farmed fish are rated on their use of marine resources, risk of escapes, disease & pollution, and overall management. All this info is packed neatly into fresh pocket guides twice a year, giving you the most up to date information on which fish are environmentally friendly and which are not. With some fish, the method is really what counts (like Cod). If you’re not sure what method your fish is fished with, check the packaging or ask the guy behind the fish counter. If it isn’t listed, and they can’t tell you, then pick an option you’re sure is a good choice instead. Many stores, though, will have it right on the package if its wild-caught, farmed, or local.

The one thing that doesn’t factor into the guides is the relative nutrition of the species from our perspective. While some do have health warnings, generally speaking, the guides are designed to talk about what choice is good for ocean health, not human health. This is, of course, until recently, when Seafood Watch announced its “Super Green” list. This group are the creme de la creme of seafood choices – they’re the most sustainable fish that also happen to be high in long-chain Omega-3 fatty acids and low in environmental contaminants like mercury. This effort draws from experts in human health, notably scientists from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), to combine the best of both worlds: sustainability and good nutrition.

Note: Both charts can be re-categorized by clicking on the column headings

Full list can be found on our website:

Other groups have put out similar lists that highlight both nutrition and sustainability. One of the other great ones is produced by the Washington State Department of Health. Their “Healthy Fish Guide” lists the fish that are lowest in contamination, with special notes to those that are high in Omega-3s and warnings in orange that show a particular fish or method is unsustainable. In general, these user-friendly guides allow us to make smarter choices that improve our lives while decreasing the impact we have on our environment.

As always when buying fish, be sure that it’s properly stored and/or fresh (for tips on how, check out the FDA’s page on seafood). If you’re buying frozen fish, here’s a tip I learned from my grandmother – try defrosting it in milk. The fish turns out much more tasty, flaky and moist (at least from my experience)! And if you’re looking for some great recipes for the Super Green options, check out the Seafood Watch’s recipe site. They’re adding new ones every month to promote people to eat their choices for the most sustainable healthy seafood. In turn, your smarter choices at the grocery store will hopefully convince the money-minded fisheries managers that sustainability is important, and they will stop over harvesting our oceans so that there’s plenty of fish for generations to come to enjoy.

Read Turning the Tide – put out by the Monterey Bay Aquarium.  It will teach you about the current state of the oceans as they relate to seafood production and how we can move towards more sustainable solutions:

Special thanks to Alison Barratt, Communications Associate Manager at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, for giving me the full info on sustainable seafood!