Genetic Modification: Pro GMO or No GMO?

Source: http://engl105062.web.unc.edu

Genetic Modification (GM) of organisms and our food is incredibly hot topic in this day and age. The internet is full to the brim with very strongly opinionated articles about why you either should or should not be for the use of GM products. These opinions are cleverly disguised as facts, and are about as useful as a chocolate teapot... Thus, as a result, through time I have had friends who are vehemently against their existence, which often lead me to lean far the opposite way in the 'for' camp. However, over the last year or so, I have found myself dwindling back in the middle again - a reason I wanted to write this post in the first place. Despite this, I've been putting it off for weeks, trying to procure legitimate facts and rid my brain of preconceptions or little sound bites I've heard. So, please, if you're firmly in one camp or another, I ensure that you will benefit from reading further and understanding both the pros and cons, and extending that olive branch to your "GM-emies" (*cough* enemies *cough*) to finally end the disdain you feel... Otherwise, if you're in an argument with a strict "yes or no"-er, you can now have the upper hand of knowledge!

So, what's the deal with GM? Genetic Modification is when a species' genetic material (either DNA or RNA) has been altered in some way that is not specific to that organism, for example, through the switching on or off of certain characteristics within the genome, or by transferring genes from one organism to another (including different species). Regardless of the potential pros of this recent technology, there are strong public concerns over its safety within food production, and fear of its damage to human health, the environment and economies. A lot of these worries appear to stem from the prevalence of multi-billion agricultural biotechnology company, Monsanto, whose patents on a large proportion of crop seeds grants them a great deal of control and power over what we eat. This is undoubtedly a worrying matter. However, others seem to focus more on the safety of the food itself, as opposed to the inequality in its distribution or ownership... Despite this, the UN say that as a planet who are currently facing a huge crisis in terms of food security and malnutrition, we cannot justify ignoring the use of Genetic Modified Organisms (GMOs) in our food. So, is there anything wrong with GM food, or is it just in the wrong hands?

Source: www.livinglimitlessly.com

For / Pros / Yea

Productivity:

• Crops can be genetically modified to become more resistant to certain stress factors, such as pests, weather conditions (e.g. drought or frost), and disease, making it less likely for their yields to fail. In some cases, this can increase the overall yield of crops and increase their adaptability to climate change and other environmental stress, which would provide more food globally, and ensure improved food security in the future. Additionally, this can pave the way for increased efficiency and future research in improving crops through GM methods.
• For animals, genetic modification has the potential to increase milk yields in cows, which can reduce the amount of dairy cattle needed, which in turn reduces their devastating impact on the environment, as described here.

Environment:

• GM crops can decrease the environmental destruction caused by chemical and industrial practices. For example, crops modified to be resistant to pests and disease dramatically reduce the amount of pesticides used on them. A study (conducted between 1996 and 2002) determining the environmental impact of pesticide use concluded that a reduction of 503 million kilograms led to a decreased direct carbon footprint of 18.7%, including an equivalent reduction in GHG emissions from 11.9 million cars (compared to the mass of CO₂). 
• The ability to produce more food on less agricultural land due to the increased productivity potential of GM crops. This reduces the need to cultivate new land.
• Additionally, we are able to rehabilitate degraded land, which again decreases the need to cultivate new land. This is achievable either through the introduction of organisms modified to increase soil quality and provide nutrients, or through the use of crops resistant to harsh conditions, such as drought or degradation.
• This available land can be used to create bio-fuels, modified to efficiently provide a lot of energy, whilst simultaneously reducing the need for fossil fuels. 
• Increase the shelf life of food products, and in turn reducing the vast volumes of global food waste, which currently equates to approximately a third of all food!

Health:

• By the transfer of genes into crops, we have the potential to insert certain nutritional characteristics that may benefit consumers. Golden rice is an example of this, where the gene that encourages the production of vitamin A was transferred into certain rice crops. This advantage can decrease vitamin A deficiency, a condition that can lead to blindness, disease and death, and is prevalent in developing countries.
• The existence of GMOs allow us to experiment with medicines and vaccines, which can potentially save many lives and lead to become a more medically advanced society.
• They also enable us to learn more about certain diseases with carry genetic material.
• Lastly, we can identify certain allergens in food and organisms, thus leading to improved methods of prevention and possibly eradication.

Source: http://makeena.com

Against / Cons / Nay

Socio-Economic:

• As mentioned previously, the ownership of certain GM crop seeds (often within the private sector) decreases farmers' capability to exist independently, and often runs them out of business. The idea of large companies dominating the market, and selling farmers' crops back to them at extortionate prices creates a monopoly in the market.
• This issue also affects the freedom of researchers, which is lost due to the ownership of property, and can reduce the speed in which research is developed.
• The well-known "terminator" feature of GM crops, stopping crop from reproducing the following season naturally, is designed to prevent the crossing of GM seeds with non-GM seeds, which can lead to complications described below. However, it also means that farmers cannot save seeds from one season to the next, and have little choice but to buy new ones again (likely at high prices).

Environment:

• It is a possibility that the genes through one GM species could be transferred unexpectedly to another through "gene escape". This could result in weeds developing herbicide-resistance, and thus damaging future crops. Out-crossing is heavily monitored prior to its introduction in agricultural practice, and has not yet indicated an increased risk of invasive species. However, this cannot be ruled out as a future possibility and issue.
• Unknown genetic mutations could potentially occur, with unknown consequences over future generations.
• During the modification, non-targeted (sleeper) genes should be accidentally be switched on, or equally important, active genes may be switched off, leading to unpredictable outcomes.
• The impact of GMOs on biodiversity or ecosystems is also hard to predict. For example, in the laboratory, Bt crops were shown to have a negative impact on certain butterfly species, however this was not reflected in real life.
• Additionally, the concern over insect resistance in Bt crops led experts to push for plans that require all fields containing insect-resistance crops to be accompanied by locations containing non-GM crops, to ensure insect biodiversity is maintained.
• GM crops aren't only a threat to animals, but also to crop biodiversity, either through the competition or crossing of these with wild species.

Health:

• A risk is the possible transfer of genes containing allergens into other crops, which may be a danger to allergy sufferers.
• There may be unapproved genetically modified food available on the market, which will require strict regulations and governance.
• Similarly to eating meat, GM foods have the potential to transfer resistance of antibiotics to humans (and livestock) which would make us highly susceptible to bacterial diseases, and may lead to increased deaths.

So, what do you think now? Yea or Nay? Please leave your opinions in the comments about where you think you are, and we can all have a gruelling debate! Even if you're still in the middle... Or if you have any questions at all, please do not hesitate to ask!

Source: www.civilbeat.com

(RE)Solutions to Reduce Future Climate Vulnerability in Food Systems

Source: www.wholebodyreboot.com

It is clear that one of the main issues we face when ensuring global food security is climate change. Therefore, it seems obvious that our main solution here is reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, switching to renewable sources of energy, adapting more sustainable agricultural practices, et cetera. As mentioned in other previous posts, we would benefit to staving off red meats and switching to more plant-based diets, as well as highly reducing our waste of food, and even our consumption. However, it's all well and good to say these things coming from a western perspective, where everything is readily available... Yet, most of our food is often grown abroad. Especially staple goods, like rice and wheat. It may be easy for us to switch these parts of our society, but it's not that simple for others developing nations, who rely on selling off rainforests for agricultural land (like in Amazonian countries), vast fossil fuel industries (like China) and large industries that need to increase their GDP at the expense of exploiting their workers. Things aren't always as black and white as they seem... But as privileged people, we should be doing more.

As mentioned in a few previous posts, food security is characterised by three main pillars: access, availability and utilisation. Therefore, to reduce vulnerability to external factors, such as climate change, conflict, disease and the likes, we need to ensure that we achieve security in all of these individual sects.

Availability

Gregory et al. (2005) believe that boosting production is our solution to increasing availability of food. Although this is difficult to dispute, they interpret this as increasing intensification of agricultural production, cultivating new agricultural land, increasing widespread use of chemical inputs (fertilisers, pesticides, etc.) and furthering development of genetically modified crops (which will be discussed in further detail next time).  Contrarily, the FAO disagree by stating that we need to move forward with "climate-smart" methods of agriculture. To be fair, we cannot expect nations to switch to sustainable practice, if they have not been educated or encouraged to do so. Therefore, we must campaign to reduce government subsidies that push small farmers to engage in unsustainable practices, and educate the globe about how to integrate pest management and boost yields with minimal fertilisers. Additionally, we need to increase international funding for the adaptation and mitigation of climate change for developing nations, as presented in the COP21 agreement, to reduce future global food insecurity.

Access

Poverty and infrastructure are two key elements impacting global access to food, which both boil down to economies and available money. Gregory et al. (2005) comment that we need to improve food distribution, such as enhancing transport infrastructure and political agreements that circulate food faster in cases of emergency, as well as increase economic access to food by introducing policies that cut out middle men, lowering price of production, encouraging economic growth and providing political stability. The latter point (to increase economic access) contradicts the ideas put forward for improving availability, as industrial practices reduce agricultural employment, increase production costs, and reduce GDP per capita. Thus, to improve access, we must introduce more sustainable and local agricultural practices, that serve local communities. In respect to improving transportation, this can indeed certainly be said for developing countries, however possibly less so for developed nations, who should in turn be working hard to reduce their carbon footprints within the transport sector, and instead look to grow and import food more locally.

Utilisation

Defined as the "appropriate use based on knowledge of basic nutrition and care", utilisation refers to the education of its users and producers. Thus, to increase security in food utilisation, our main priority must be to educate farmers, producers and consumers in sustainable and secure practices, healthy and environmentally-friendly eating, and the reduction of food waste.


In short, it's incredibly difficult to gauge how to best increase future food security, and one that policy-makers have found challenging for decades. In a world where individuals focus on gaining personal profit at the expense of others, and environmental degradation is a "future matter", it's hard to see everything for what it truly is, instead of how it may appear... As westerners, our smart phones are often made out of conflict materials, our clothes made through slave labour, our electricity provided at the expense of suffocating smog, GHG emissions and pollution, our food processed beyond recognition, and our wars that serve agendas to be seen fighting the "war on terror". We have it so easy, yet it is never enough... So, to really reduce your impact, think about what you need, why you need it, and how best to obtain it ethically and environmentally...

Dietary Decisions: Part 2 - Lettuce is Worse Than Bacon!?

Source: www.cohabitaire.com

I cannot lie, and say that I haven’t found writing this post incredibly difficult! First of all, reaching a scientific consensus was a bit of a challenge, with many conflicting opinions and interests on the issue, and many studies only focusing on certain impacts (direct emissions, land-use, etc.). You begin to wonder who you can really trust. Despite this, after many days of research, I finally felt that I had reached a solid understanding of the literature and concluded that plant-based diets are the clear winners when it comes to the environment (as is often echoed). "Yay!", I thought, now I can commence the writing process... However, literally minutes before my fingers hit the keyboard, I come across this article boldly claiming “Lettuce is ‘three times worse than bacon’ for emissions and vegetarian diets could be bad for the environment”. Sensationalist to the max, I know, but I couldn’t help getting caught up in the drama and feeling like my many hours of research were nothing but a complete waste of time and effort. Luckily, I manage to trundle through the article and associated research paper, and deduce that the conclusion was based upon dietary recommendations, not vegetarian diets, and that it was totally twisted out of context. Not to mention that lettuce is very water and carbon intensive as vegetables go. So, finally, I manage to regain my confidence and comprehension.. And then, BAM! I realise that, although I don’t eat a great deal of meat, sometimes I really love beef burgers, cheese and bacon, and I start to feel the need to totally reassess my life and values…

But, fear not! All hope is not lost for the meat enthusiasts… If you dare to read further, you may find some surprising (and some not so surprising) results.

An Emissions-Based Approach

The most common measure of climate impact within the food industry is the amount of direct greenhouse gas emissions produced, equivalent to the mass of CO₂. This excludes any emissions produced by land use, deforestation, transportation, cooking, storage, etc.

My research began through the investigation of five American diets – Meat Lover, Average, No Beef, Vegetarian, and Vegan – compiled by the USDA’s Economic Research Service and adapted by Shrink That Footprint, inferring a consumption of approximately 2,600kcal per day.

Source: Shrink That Footprint

Unsurprisingly, the results showed that GHG emissions escalated with increased meat consumption, with vegans at the low end of the scale, and meat lovers at the other. Interestingly, vegetarianism did not fall too short behind veganism, despite the vast proportion of animal products consumed by vegetarians coming from dairy cows – which are shown here (and in my previous blog post) to contribute massively to potent greenhouse gas emissions. An even more surprising finding is that simply omitting red meat from the diet has a drastic reduction in carbon footprint, and contributes to a similar measure of emissions compared to vegetarianism. It seems maybe we should consider ending our romanticism with beef and lamb, and rediscover our love for white meats (or none at all). The research concluded that, in the average American diet, 60% of emissions were produced by meat and dairy, although only equating to 25% of the energy in the diet.

Source: Shrink That Footprint

However, plant-based diets aren’t totally off the hook, as fruit is shown to be the second most carbon intensive food group measured for direct emissions, likely due to the high volume of fruit that becomes waste and is often grown out of season. Although, with that being said, this still only contributes to a third of the average emissions produced by ruminant animals, and is almost identical to the amount produced by dairy. Additionally, meat eaters still eat 80+kcal of fruit on average, reinforcing that this is not just the responsibility of herbivores!

Source: Hallstrom et al., 2015

It cannot be ignored that this study does carry limitations, particularly as it only takes into account American dietary habits and fails to include the amount of studies it includes. Despite this, the findings are supported by another paper, conducted by Hallström et al., 2015, which compiles together twelve independent studies, between 2009 and 2014, looking at the emissions produced by various diets. This report confirmed that vegan, vegetarian and diets without red meat contributed to the lowest amount of greenhouse gas emissions, with a reduction of approximately 20 to 55% in total. However, interestingly, a moderate reduction of about 20% of average meat intake had an insignificant effect, due to the common replacement of meat with equally highly carbon intensive food groups, such as dairy, and out of season and imported fruit and vegetables. It is abundantly clear from the evidence that meat derived from ruminant animals is the main driving force that causes devastation to the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

An additional component of this study was the inclusion of the “healthy” diet, characterised by an omnivorous palette, abiding by an array of different dietary guidelines. The reduction of emissions were highly variable (between 0 to 35%) with nine out of fifteen studies closer to a 10% reduction or less. The definition of a healthy diet was very loosely described, and is therefore difficult to take seriously into consideration.

Land-Use Contribution

Within the same paper, the impact of diets on land-use were also examined, compiling evidence from four separate studies which compared the diets of vegans, vegetarians, meat partially replaced by plant-based food and healthy diet with an average meat-eating diet. Again, the results deduced that ruminant livestock farming was the main driver of land-use change in agriculture.

The current availability of agricultural land globally per capita is estimated to be 7000m². As developing countries continue to grow economically, and Western countries continue to indulge, the global average per capita land demand is set to reach a whopping 5000m² by 2050. This will begin to put a serious strain on humanity, as we edge closer toward a self-inflicted carrying capacity. However, if the consumption of red meat can be reduced through any of the dietary scenarios investigated, it is predicted that the land demand could potentially reduce to between 2200 to 3500 m². This could significantly reduce environmental damage caused by land-use change, reduce deadly climate change, and allow us to continue expanding our population more freely.

Source: Hallstrom et al., 2015

How much of an impact do these diets appear to have? Replacing all food products from animals with plant-based alternatives, i.e. veganism, on average, decreases the land demand by 60% compared to an average meat-eating diet. Fascinatingly, a substitution of 75% of red meat with poultry or pork has the potential to reduce the land demand by 40%. Whereas, contrarily, substituting half of monogastric meat consumption with plant-based food has little effect, with an estimated 5% reduction on land demand. Therefore, it is apparent that pork and poultry have fairly similar demands on land-use to plant-based foods.

There are, unarguably, some uncertainties within these studies, due to individual differences and the difficulty in accurately modelling certain processes, such as predicting the emissions produced by ruminant animals and soils, variability in socioeconomic status, geographical location, temporal variability, gender and age. Despite this, the results overall consistently reach the same conclusion, that plant-based diets are generally kinder to the environment.

Alternative Diets

So, “what about all those other diets that haven’t been included in the context of this study?” I hear you say. Let’s take a look at a few of these individually!

Paleo Diet

If you are unaware, the so-called “paleo” or “paleolithic” diet is based upon the perception of what our early, nomadic ancestors, who once foraged and hunted for their food, used to eat. (If you’ve forgotten about our hunter-gatherer friends, you can check out my blog post about it here). This relatively new diet consists of largely meat, fish, nuts, berries and vegetables, with no grains, dairy, sugar, legumes or alcohol allowed - encouraging a high protein, low carbohydrate diet. It is shown that eating food of this nature on a regular basis puts unnecessary strain on the body and can lead to serious health problems, such as, heart disease, renal failure, high cholesterol and cancer.

Source: www.blakebeckford.co.uk

To not forget that the high meat content within the diet (which particularly focuses on red meat) puts mass pressure on the environment through increased greenhouse gas emissions and land-use change, as discussed above. This makes the paleo diet a poor contender for being environmentally friendly, as well as for sustaining a healthy lifestyle.

Additionally, the diet has been heavily criticised as the circumstances in which animals are bred within modern agriculture are not representative of the wild animals hunted thousands years ago. For example, today livestock are fed with high-protein and high carb feed, alongside an abundance of antibiotics, which contradicts the “healthy” and grain-less demure of the paleolithic diet.

Raw Diet

Source: http://rawgourmets.com

Another diet which claims to be the best for health and the environment is the raw food diet, consisting of purely uncooked and unprocessed ingredients. This diet is relatively variable as some continue to eat raw meat and dairy, while others maintain vegan or vegetarian diets as well. Regardless, the main argument for raw foodism is that recipients believe that they’re acquiring all the nutrients available within their food, as they are not “destroying” them by cooking. However, contrary to popular belief, cooking food aids digestion and allows our bodies to access more nutrients, compared to raw ingredients. It is common for women to stop ovulating due to the lack of nutrients being absorbed, despite them being abundantly available within the food. This is no surprise when we acknowledge the fact that civilisations expanded greatly after the discovery of fire, due to prevalence of cooked food, which continues to be a central element of almost all cultures in modern day.

However, from an environmental standpoint, raw food does reduce the emissions caused by cooking, processing and packaging food. Despite this, the ingredients needed to sustain such a diet may be more resource and carbon intensive, due to the high consumption of fruit, and out of season produce, which potentially puts additional strain on the environment compared to other diets.

Top Tips for a Healthy and Environmentally Friendly Diet

1.      Reduce red meat intake to a minimum, preferably omit completely
2.      Purchase seasonal and local produce
3.      If you wish to consume monogastric meat, elect for grass-fed or pasture-raised
4.      If you wish to consume fish, stick to sustainably sourced
5.      Reduce food waste – waste not, want not!
6.      Buy certified organic produce
7.      Consider reducing your dairy intake
8.      Try composting
9.      Only eat as much as you need!!

Source: https://extraportionnatur.files.wordpress.com/

Dietary Decisions: Part 1 - An Overview

Dietary decisions are, unarguably, a part of our everyday lives. For most, these choices are personal and of intrinsic importance, which makes the task of telling people what they should or shouldn’t eat a great challenge.  Vegetarians and vegans are particularly stigmatised for their approach to combatting environmental damage and animal cruelty, and are often labelled as irritating or preachy. Equally, the ignorance of these issues surrounding food production probably does cause vegans and vegetarians alike to become a bit self-righteous and cheesed off, and subsequently berate their meat-eating counterparts. So, how do we stop this endless cycle? I guess by presenting the hard, cold facts and letting people see for themselves.

But, sometimes it’s really hard to get all the facts… There are so many diets out there claiming to be the best, the healthiest, and the most environmentally friendly, with countless recipes, pictures and ideas on the internet for you to gaze upon. But, which way do we turn? Vegan? Vegetarian? Paleo? Raw? Gluten Free? Pescatarian? Raw? No Red Meat? Ahhhh!!

Is this really the correct balance in our diets?
Source: here

Many diets have potential pitfalls, and it’s important having an awareness of what these are and how to combat them. For example, meat-based diets raise concerns of animal cruelty, diets containing red meat impact on global greenhouse gas emissions, and vegetarian and vegan diets often face issues of iron and vitamin B12 deficiencies. Additionally, there are other limitations to certain diets, such as, health conditions, pregnancy, socioeconomic status, geographical location, access to food and religious beliefs.

Before embarking on my blogging journey, I had never before put a label on my dietary habits. I have eaten meat my entire life, and still cannot quite call myself a vegetarian (even though my consumption is now relatively limited). As a child, meat was on the table at almost every meal. For a time, I could not imagine many meals that didn’t have meat on the menu. It wasn’t until half way through my mathematics undergrad degree that I started running low on money, and made a conscious decision to start cutting down on my consumption.

Source: http://bridgetnielsen.com

Since then, I have discovered lots of amazing vegetarian recipes that are tastier, healthier and cheaper than my original meat ones. I know that I do not suffer from deficiencies as I was already B12 deficient (so have regular injections), and have a very high iron count (which is tested every 16 weeks when I give blood). Now, I only purchase meat when it is in the reduced section and is about to expire, and only if it is chicken, turkey, pork or fish. Additionally, if a meal is prepared for me, I will not let it go to waste.

In this respect, I suppose that I now consider myself a “flexitarian”. George Monbiot says I’m a cheating vegetarian… I hardly think that’s fair when I consciously avoid red meat in particular, rarely eat meat at all, and do my best to purchase local and seasonal food (with exception to my dessert choices – by far my greatest weakness!). Despite this, I do often think I’m not doing enough. As Chad at Sown on Stony Grown has questioned, can you eat meat and still call yourself an environmentalist? I want to, but I can’t help feeling like I’m not doing enough…

Upon undertaking this blog, I have truly discovered the most pressing environmental impacts that our food choices have, and I continue to be utterly stunned at how food production is never at the forefront of the climate debate. So, if it isn’t being talked about enough, let’s take matters into our own hands! What diets should we be working toward to do our bit of climate change? How much power do we have as consumers?  And should we be doing more to put pressure on the food industry?

Please join me next time, when I will be spilling the beans!