Are Organic Apples At Risk of Being Redefined As Contaminated?

An Apple Orchard In Bloom

There is an interesting new "GMO" apple nearing approval in the US and in Canada called the "Arctic Apple."  It was developed by a British Columbia, grower-based organization called Okanagan Specialty Fruit.  Certain genes in these apples are turned off so that the fruit doesn't  express the enzymes that make the apples turn brown after cutting.  You could slice the apples, put them in your lunch or your kid's lunch, and they would still have full flavor, vitamins, and color when it was time to eat them.  I think this is a useful, consumer-oriented trait. Predictably, there are opponents for this sort of scientific innovation.

An Arctic Apple on the right has not browned like the unmodified apple on the left

I've written before about this issue before, but in this post I want to specifically address a particular objection to the commercialization of this technology - the concept that the growing of these "GMO" apples could put the local organic apple industry at risk of becoming "genetically contaminated." I absolutely agree that the organic industry is at risk, but not from the Arctic Apples.  They are at risk from this new definition of "contamination" driven by the "defenders" of organic, which would unintentionally classify all organic apples as being particularly "contaminated."

The "contamination" scenario is based on the potential movement of pollen from flowers of the Arctic Apples to apple flowers in organic orchards.  It is useful to consider this from a biological perspective.

Plant Sex

A Honey Bee Doing Its Normal Job in an Apple Flower

What we are really talking about here is not a new phenomenon associated with a "GM Crop."  This is about normal plant sex.  Apple flowers are not "self-fruitful" meaning that for an apple flower to be successfully fertilized, the pollen has to come from a genetically distinct apple -  usually carried by a bee.  One efficient way to foster this DNA exchange is to graft some branches of crabapples onto some of the trees in an orchard or to simply grow some crabapples within the orchard.  The bees visit those flowers and carry the pollen to flowers of the desired variety. The only part of the resulting apples that contains the DNA from the crabapple is the embryo portion of the seed.  All of the rest of the apple that we eat only has the genes of the intended variety. Thus, even though apples might be pollinated from marginally edible crabapples, we have never considered them to be "contaminated."

If Arctic Apples are commercialized in BC (or anywhere), there might be some small percentage of seeds in other varieties that would be pollinated by a bee that moved between the two types of orchards.  As with the crab apples, but at a vastly lower incidence, there will be the DNA from the arctic apple, a tiny part of which has been changed to prevent expression of the apple genes for browning.  Someone would have to intentionally sample lots of apple seed using very sensitive lab techniques to find this.  If that sort of DNA in seeds is redefined as "contamination," then all apples are contaminated with the DNA from a different apple variety or a crabapple.

But What About The Seeds?

The only thing that could be "scary" about the apple seeds with the Arctic Apple DNA is the same thing that is "scary" about all apple seeds.  They are "cyanogenic" meaning that if chewed, they produce hydrogen cyanide. You would have to eat a lot of apple seeds to be affected, but apple seed consumption is a non-issue for any normal sort of consumer.

The next important thing to know about apple trees is that they are not grown from seeds.  Almost no fruit crops are grown from seed because what you will get will not be the desirable variety you started with, but usually a much inferior type that results from the cross of two different lines. The apple varieties we eat are always "cloned", meaning they are reproduced by grafting - not seeds. Long ago some apple seeds were used to make root stocks, but in modern orchards (including organic), the growers use cloned "dwarfing rootstocks" so that their trees can be kept in a size range that is much safer and more efficient for harvest.  So just as it is no problem to grow many distinct apple varieties in the same area, there is nothing newly problematic about adding Arctic Apples to that variety list.

But What About the Bacterial or Viral DNA?

In the process of genetic engineering, there are some sequences of DNA from a bacterium and from a virus which end up in the modified plant. The bacterium in question is called Agrobacterium and it is nature's own genetic engineer.  It makes a circular bit of DNA called a plasmid which it uses to get some genes inserted in plants it infects. We use a "disarmed" version of that plasmid so a little bit of Agrobacterium DNA is in the modified plant, but it is not "expressed" meaning that no proteins are made based on that DNA.  That DNA has been a part of most GMO crops for a very long time without any issues, but if the presence of bacterial DNA is going to be called "contamination," the there will be a problem with every apple we eat, not just the seeds of some of them.

Why You Get Bacterial DNA With Every Apple, And More From Organic

You may have heard about "microbiomes" which are communities of bacteria and other organisms that inhabit everything from our intestines to our skin.  On plants there are similar microbial communities we call epiphytes (living on the plant surface) and endophytes (living among the plant cells).  All apples have abundant bacterial populations of this nature with all of their bacterial DNA - not just some tiny fragment as in the modified apples.  If that presence is going to be defined as "contamination" then every apple everywhere is contaminated with bacterial genes!

For apples in general, and for organic apples in particular, there are widely used, very safe biological control agents which are based on whole bacteria and thus include the DNA of bacteria.  Bt sprays are based on the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis and are commonly sprayed on apples to control caterpillars.  There are biocontrols to suppress apple diseases based on the bacteria Bacillus subtilis and Bacillus pumilus.  These products are often sprayed on organic apples.  In these cases we are talking about the full compliment of bacterial DNA expressing the bacterial genes.  If bacterial DNA introduced by human activity is defined as a contaminant, then all apples are "contaminated," particularly the organic ones.

There is also a specific piece of virus DNA in an engineered plant like the Arctic Apple, and it has been raised as a "contamination issue."  That piece is called a promoter and it is what turns on the gene that follows it in a DNA sequence.  Again, that promoter in the embryo of an uneaten seed is a functional non-issue, but it is certainly not the only viral DNA on or in an apple.  There are viruses called phages present in some of the bacteria that live on the plant.  However, none of this even compares to the amount of virus (with its DNA) that is quite intentionally sprayed on apples. There are biocontrol products, also approved for organic, based on Cydia pomonella granulosis virus. This is an agent which infects and kills the larvae of the codling moth - one of the biggest pests of apples.  The growers use these viruses as part of an integrated pest management system, but by the new definition being promoted, that means "contamination."

The Organic Precedents For This Sort of Issue

If there is ever any problem for organic growers because of the commercialization of the Arctic Apple, that injury will be entirely self-inflicted by the wing of the organic community that makes the rules.  It will be the result of a state of mind, not any rational risk.  It will also go against well-established precedents for organic.  The USDA Organic rules allow for a degree of "unintentional" contamination of organic produce with synthetic pesticides.  The same is true for fertilizers.  In California there were two historical instances where companies were "spiking" an organic fertilizer product with "synthetic nitrogen." For some time, a majority of California organic growers were using such products.  When the fraud was exposed, none of the farms that had used that fertilizer lost their organic status or had to go through the three year transition again.  It was ruled to have been unintentional.  Why wouldn't the same logic be used for the "unintentional" presence of a tiny bit of harmless DNA in a few apple seeds we don't eat or plant?

The organic apple growers of British Columbia are not threatened in any rational way by the potential commercialization of genetically engineered apples.  The only threat comes from those who want to re-define genetic contamination in a way which makes no practical sense.  This doesn't serve the interests of consumers, nor does it really serve the interests of the organic growers.

Honey bee on apple flower image from Wikipedia.  Arctic Apple image from Okanagan Specialty Crops.  Apple orchard image mine.

Disclaimer:  I am not employed by Okanagan Specialty Fruit in any way.  My opinions on this topic are my own.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.  My speaking website is DrSteveSavage.com.

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Why You Can Feel Guilt-free Buying Non-Organic Produce

There are several different reasons people are willing to pay more for organic produce, but many consumers do so believing that it is a way avoid pesticide residues.  That widely held belief is unfounded.  Here is why:

1. There are definitely pesticides used in the growing of organic crops.  There are residues of those materials on the harvested products.
2. Residues of synthetic pesticides are also frequently found on organic produce, even though they are not materials that are approved for use on organic.

The reason I feel the need to challenge the "avoid pesticides via organic" myth is that it causes many consumers to feel unwarranted marketing and peer pressure to spend more for organic. The guilt tripping is particularly intense for moms.  The not-so-subtle message is, "if you really cared about your family or your health, you would spend the money for organic."  Whether this leads people to spend more than they should, to buy less total produce, or just to feel bad, it is a destructive outcome based on disinformation. Yes, there are low level pesticide residues on both categories of produce, but in neither case should those residues dissuade you from enjoying all the health benefits that come with eating lots of fruits and vegetables.

Residues of Organic-Approved Pesticides on Organic Produce

Anyone who has ever gardened realizes that there are plenty of pests out there that like to "share" the plants we grow for food.  There is no magic feature of organic that gets around this biological reality, and so there is an extensive list of pesticides that can be used by organic farmers. That list is not based on safety, but rather on whether the material is considered "natural." "Natural" does not automatically mean "safe." Indeed, some of the most toxic chemicals known come from nature. The organic-approved pesticides still have to be registered with the EPA because it is that agency's job to insure that these materials can be used in ways that are safe for us and safe for the environment.

Some organic approved pesticides are very benign (low hazard) materials, but so are a great many of the synthetic pesticides used by conventional farmers.  Some organic-approved pesticides are slightly to moderately toxic. This is also the case for synthetics.  There are many pesticides that are used by both conventional and organic growers.  Some of the pesticides commonly used on organic crops are applied at rather high rates (pounds per treated acre).  Some are approved for use until almost immediately before harvest.  In any case, organic-approved pesticides definitely leave residues on treated crops by the time they reach the consumer.

Synthetic Pesticide Residues on Organic Produce

Occasionally, government agencies intentionally conduct specific surveys of organic produce to check for residues of non-allowed, synthetic pesticides.  The Canadian Health Authority did this in 2011/13 and they found synthetic pesticide residues on 46% of the organic produce samples.  In 2010/11, a similar survey was conducted by the USDA, and they also found synthetics on 43% of organic produce samples. Both sample sets included produce grown in the US, Canada and Mexico. What both of these agencies found wasn't alarming, but it definitely doesn't fit the marketing claims about organic as a way to "avoid synthetic pesticide residues." The presence of these residues does not generally mean that organic growers are violating the organic rules. Some of produce may have been mislabeled. Also, the testing methods are simply so sensitive that they can detect materials that got there unintentionally through something like spray drift or from harvesting or storage equipment.  In fact, the rules for organic have always allowed for the "unintentional" presence of such chemicals.  Buying organic does not mean "no synthetic pesticides."

Should We Worry About These Residues?

Since avoiding all pesticide residues is not an option, the remaining question is "Should we worry about them?"  Are the residues on organic and conventional different enough matter?  The short answer is, "No." Here is why.

When regulatory agencies such as the EPA approve a pesticide for use on a crop, they use all the information they have about that chemical to define an amount of it which can be present at the consumer level without any meaningful risk.  In the US that is called a "tolerance" and in most countries it is called an MRL (maximum residue level).  These thresholds are designed to be very conservative, so that as long as the residues are at these levels or lower, they are about 100 times less than an amount that would be of any concern.  These values are based on an extensive risk assessment based on millions of dollars worth of required testing.  The regulators also restrict how the pesticide can be used (e.g. how long between the spray and harvest) so that any residues left should be below the tolerance.

So whether we are talking about the residues on organic or on conventional, the meaningful questions are:

1. What is the particular chemical that was detected?
2. How does the amount of that chemical which was found compare to the crop/chemical-specific tolerance or MRL?

Every year the USDA collects samples of produce, takes it into the lab, and looks for residues of pesticides. They publish the data, and what it consistently shows is that the residues are virtually all below or even well below the conservative tolerances.  Similar data is generated in Canada.  California does additional testing.  The results from these more extensive testing programs are very much like those occasional studies with organic:  yes, there are residues, but no, they are not worrisome.  

Each year, an organization called The Environmental Working Group (EWG) publishes a list that it claims to provide guidance for consumers about which fruits and vegetables have the "most pesticide residues" and thus which are high priority for buying as organic.  In making their list they specifically ignore the data which the USDA provides about the identity of the chemical and about how its concentration compares to the appropriate tolerance.  EWG has never provided any justification for this absurdly non-scientific approach. They also never happen to mention the reality that there are also often pesticide residues on the organic options. The publication of this list is apparently very good for the EWG's fundraising efforts, but it is a huge disservice to consumers. Their "Dirty Dozen List" or "Shopper's Guide" is one of the most egregious examples of the dishonest, guilt-based marketing that puts so much pressure on moms and others.

Just enjoy!

Study after study demonstrate the substantial health benefits of a diet with lots of fruits and vegetables.  That beneficial and delicious produce will come with some trace levels of the pesticides that conventional or organic farmers used to be able to successfully produce the food for your family.  You can enjoy it without guilt.

Just a few links about produce and health:

• Broccoli benefits
• Asparagus benefits
• Health benefits of eating berries
• Vegetable fat health benefits
• How eating whole fruit reduces diabetes risk
• Comparing produce benefits to risks
• Eating apples can reduce stroke risk

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.  I tweet about new posts @grapedoc.  My speaking website can be found here.



  

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Do You Really Need To Be Afraid To Eat MacDonalds French Fries?

There is a widely watched video of a recent talk titled "How Cooking Can Change Your Life" given by author Michael Pollan (Omnivore's Dilemma etc).  His main point is that Americans and Europeans would be much better off health-wise if they ate a lot more home cooked meals.  I can certainly agree with that concept, but I have some problems with his approach in this talk.  He basically spins a scary, conspiratorial story about McDonalds french fries and how they are grown.  Unfortunately, there is a lot of outright disinformation in his talk.  He also presents an unfair and inaccurate picture of the potato industry as a whole.  I don't know where Pollan got his information, but it was clearly not from someone with a very complete perspective.  The "scary" aspect of the talk is now being trumpeted by entities like the Village Green Network to convince people they should "never eat McDonalds fries again!" This is not exactly a legitimate way to convince people of the benefits of home cooking.

I'll go through the main points of Pollan's talk.  He claims that McDonalds will only accept Russet Burbank potatoes and that those have  unusually long tubers and are difficult to grow.  In fact, McDonalds has approved several cultivars over the years which can meet their quality standards that involve much more than just size.  Russet Burbank is a very old cultivar that is still around because it is particularly consistent and because growers know very well how to produce it.  The growers do get more money for potatoes in a certain size range and less for those that are smaller or larger.  Farmers don't sell directly to McDonalds but rather to a few major processing companies.   Those processors have other uses for all the little or big spuds because they make more than just the fries for McDonalds.

Pollan said that McDonald's does not accept any blemishes - particularly those caused by a viral disease that has a symptom in the tuber called "net necrosis."

Net necrosis symptoms in a potato.  Not something you would serve at home either

He claims that to stop the aphids that vector the virus, the growers use an insecticide called Monitor which is so toxic they won't enter the fields for 5 days after spraying.  Lots of problems with this story.  Actually, there are several important virus diseases of potatoes, and the growers need to control the aphids that spread them for many reasons beyond the net necrosis issue.  Virus infected potatoes yield poorly, so to allow them to become sick would reduce the resource use-efficiency of all the crop inputs (land, water, fertilizer, fuel, labor...).

Virus infected potato vine (center) vs healthy vines of the same age

The ways that potato farmers control the aphids and the viruses are actually quite complex and involve more than just sprays.  Even for the spraying, the old product, Monitor, is far less important than it once was.  The "five days" thing is not something bizarre. The EPA sets "re-entry intervals" (REIs) for all pesticides for the purpose of worker safety.  The shortest ones are several hours and for Monitor it is actually 4 days. It is just a prudent part of the EPA oversight.  Again, farmers now have many other insecticide options (here is an article about this from 2002 and since then there are even more good options).

Pollan then goes on to say that the potatoes have to be stored in big warehouses for 60 days for the toxic pesticide to "off-gass."  That is simply false.  How potatoes are stored and why has absolutely nothing to do with the use of Monitor or any other chemicals used in the field.  Storage of potatoes is very important because otherwise we would only have them available fresh for a few months out of the year.  For those that are frozen as fries, it is still important to have storage prior to processing so that the expensive processing facilities can be used all year.  This is again just a matter of efficiency.

By the way, I checked the USDA's database of pesticide residue testing for potatoes, and any residues of the chemical in Monitor (methamidophos) that were ever detected were extremely low, far below even the very conservative "tolerance" set by the EPA.  That is also true for other compounds.  You can easily scan the data at a site called CropAudit.  There is nothing scary about pesticide residues on McDonalds potatoes or any others.  The reality is that the US potato industry has a great safety record and is becoming more resource-use efficient all the time. 

So, I would join Pollan in encouraging people to enjoy potatoes in all the delicious ways one can do that with home cooking.  I would also say that there is no danger in sometimes enjoying the sort of fries that McDonalds and other restaurants can make - something difficult replicate at home.   The viable path to healthy eating is about moderation, diversity and personal responsibility - not about responding to fear-based narratives.

Fries image from Metropopam
Potato virus symptom images from the University of Idaho

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at Savage.sd@gmail.com
My speaker's website is DrSteveSavage.Com

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Chipotle Announces Intention to Develop Burritos That Grow On Trees

Today, Chipotle Mexican Grill announced that it's research division has made significant progress in the development of burritos that grow on trees.  A spokesperson said, "we were tired of the sort of supply issues that we run into when we make arbitrary demands on suppliers, so we decided to see if we could cut out the whole animal phase of burrito production - you know, the whole sad eyes and exploding cow thing." 

This effort has apparently been underway for quite a while.  The scene in Chipotle's recent "scare crow video" in which the hero picks a single pepper from a plant in his yard was intended as a preview of the direction the company has been wanting to go for a long time.  "I think its pretty clear from the tone of our marketing messages that we haven't believed that we would need any long-term relationships with regular farmers."

When asked whether this new burrito tree be "GMO" the Chipotle chief technical officer replied, "no - we only wanted to use technologies that your grandmother would recognize.  We are employing the time-tested approach of mutagenesis breeding.  If we sort through enough mutants, we can find what we want.  It will be what Nature intended all along but just hadn't gotten around to yet."

The Chipotle spokesperson also explained, "our burrito trees also won't require fossil-based energy for their fertilizer - it turns out that by setting up composting facilities downstream of our marketing operation, we can generate all the fertilizer we need."

When asked why the announcement was made today, the spokesperson said, "we looked at the calendar and decided that this was an auspicious day for this sort of exciting news.  It may be a while before our customers can really get the tree-grown burritos, but in the mean time they can feel more righteous buying our product."








Restaurant Image from Wikimedia Commons
Stylistic nod to the Borowitz Report

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

A Fishy Attempt To Link Glyphosate and Celiac Disease

Celiac is real.  The glyphosate link isn't

Stephanie Seneff (a computer scientist at MIT),  and Anthony Samsel (a retired consultant), have recently been attempting to link the use of the herbicide glyphosate to a long list of modern maladies. Their latest such attempt to is Celiac disease.  The overall argument for the glyphosate/Celiac link has already been quite thoroughly debunked by a Celiac expert, but there is one other good reason to dismiss the "link" which I would like to describe.  It has to do with a "Fishy" study about glyphosate and fish which is so flawed that it should never have been published in the first place.  That is why it can't be used to support this chemical/disease link.

The Fishy Study

Samsel and Seneff cite a publication by Indian scientists from 2009 (Senapati et al). In that study, ugly effects were observed in the digestive track of the fish that were exposed to water containing a glyphosate-based herbicide.  Such a finding would be surprising, because for decades, glyphosate has been a preferred method of weed control in aquatic settings, specifically because it has unusually low toxicity to fish and other aquatic organisms.  Glyphosate is particularly valued by the people who are trying to control invasive weeds in wetlands, lakes etc. as described here for CA, WA and FL.  They spray it on the part of the weed that is above the water because that is the only way it is effective, but obviously some glyphosate gets into the water.  Still, this use has long been considered to be safe for fish.  Did this paper document a previously unrecognized issue?

In their analysis of the Indian fish study, Samsel and Seneff concluded that the effects observed on the fish digestive systems were "highly reminiscent of Celiac disease." To me, the effects sounded much more reminiscent of surfactants.  Fish are very sensitive to those.

When I read the Senapati article, it quickly became obvious that this was indeed the problem.  These researchers specifically stated that they used a commercial formulation of glyphosate manufactured in India called Excel Mera-71.  A quick web search shows that Mera-71 is a formulation made for terrestrial, not aquatic use. The manufacturer describes it as containing glyphosate and "a blend of non-ionic and cationic surfactants." At least in the US, products registered for use on weeds growing in water do not contain surfactants because surfactants are well known to injure fish. There was no surfactant control, so the reviewers of the Senapati study should never have let them conclude that the effects were from exposure to glyphosate. It is much more likely that the fish were injured by the surfactants.

Fish Abuse

NOOOO! Not another water change!

There were other experimental design problems with the Senapati study.  They chose to put the fish into water containing 4mg/L of glyphosate.  To achieve that sort of concentration by spraying weeds in even shallow water would have required spraying the weeds above the water at many times the maximum rate allowed. (Here is an EPA label for a glyphosate product for use on weeds in water - AquaMaster). Then, to make matters worse, the water in which the fish were being kept was replaced every other day for 45 days with a fresh solution of 4 mg/L glyphosate along with the inappropriate surfactants.  That would not correspond to any imaginable use-scenario in the real world. So basically, Senapati et al abused several poor fish for more than six weeks to demonstrate what was already well known - surfactants hurt fish.  The only thing remarkable about the study is that the fish even survived. Glyphosate is still a good option for the control of aquatic weeds.  No, it does not cause Celiac.

Some Additional Thoughts About The Scientific Process

This study was a "literature-only" review which involved no actual experimentation.  That can be ok.  The literature is there to be the subject of scholarship.  On her own web page Seneff explains that she places her work in the "open access journal," Entropy, because it is "willing to publish novel hypotheses," and because  "the papers are subjected to rigorous review by experts who were not beholden to industry influence."  That can be ok too as the making of hypotheses is the starting point for the scientific method and unbiased reviews are important for science.  However, if one is going to attempt to do science this way you can't assume that every paper you find actually shows what it claims to show, even if it's what you would like it to show.   If these authors wish to review papers this far outside of their own discipline and training, they would do well to confer with people more familiar with these topics. I would be happy to recommend such resources for future publications.

In science, even when research is published in a "peer reviewed" journal, that does not finish the vetting process.  Particularly if some new finding challenges previously accepted ideas, the next stage is critical.  Does the work hold up to scrutiny by the broader scientific community?  Can the results be repeated by others?  The Senapati and Samsel /Seneff papers fail to pass these tests.  Researchers that are really trying to understand conditions like Celiac disease will continue to look at other, more likely causes.  Unfortunately, in the extensive, anti-technology sector of the internet, this new "link" will likely live on and joint the list of other myths about food and agriculture.



Celiac micrograph image from Wikimedia Commons
Unhappy Fish Image from Kiler129's Photostream

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Thoughts About Norm Borlaug on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth

Norman Borlaug would have been 100 years old today.  He has been called "The Man Who Fed The World," and "The Father of The Green Revolution."  Norm Borlaug was the first plant pathologist to be awarded a Nobel Prize (1970) - for contributions to world peace. For all of use who are fellow plant pathologists, his work has been particularly inspiring.

It is a good time to look back at how the challenge of feeding the world population was met during Borlaug's career, because we have a similar challenge ahead of us. The chart below shows global population from 1950 with a projection to 2100.  I've been looking at food production data available from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAOSTAT).  If we look at the half century since FAO started tracking it in 1960,  global population increased by 3.89 billion.  Between 2010 and 2060, global population is projected to rise by another 3.04 billion.

Between 1960 and 2010, production of most crops did manage to keep up with population growth and for many crops there was actually more available per person in 2010 than in 1960.  Living standards also improved in many parts of the world, which meant that people were able to enjoy that per capita increase.  Fertility rates have declined with the education of women combined with improvements in living standards and food security. It is projected that global human population will level off by around 2100 due to these factors.

The increase in food production during Borlaug's era was mostly achieved through increased yield on each acre or hectare grown, not from farming more land.  That was made possible by agronomic improvements,  including the breeding advances that came from the work of Borlaug and many others.

In the graph above, the two bottom, green bars show the global crop area in the window 1960-65 (1.09 billion hectares) and 2005-10 (1.45 billion hectares).  The increase, shown in the red bar, is 362 million hectares. That is an enormous amount of land, but without increased yield, it would have taken nearly 3.1 billion hectares (blue bar) to have provided the amount of food that was available to the world by 2010.  That effectively means that the global farming community, and those that aided it with technologies, advice and expertise, "saved" more than 1.6 billion hectares of land from being converted from a natural state into farmland.  Realistically, there is not that much land which could ever be farmed.

Many of Borlaug's contributions were to the staple food crop - wheat.  Wheat is not a single crop, but a collection of many different types of wheat grown for different kinds of food ranging from hearty breads, to pasta, to crackers, to flat breads to soft noodles. By the end of this 50 year window, the world's wheat farmers were producing 2.69 times as much wheat as in 1960. However, 97% of that increase (green part of the bar) was enabled by higher yields.  Only 10 million more hectares were being grown. That meant that the world could continue to have enough wheat without the need for adding 346 million more wheat hectares.  That is the legacy of Borlaug and the other participants in the Green Revolution.

The story with rice is almost as positive.  In 2005-10, humanity had access to 2.9 times as much rice as in 1960-65, and 83% of the increase was attributable to yield with 39 million new hectares added.  That meant that there were 187 million hectares which did not need to be added to the rice production base.

The story behind these higher yields is complex and varies across geographies. The details of how we might continue this sort of progress through 2060 are also complex and will involve new challenges such as climate change.  Even so, on this important anniversary it is fitting to look back at the remarkable accomplishments of the past to find inspiration for the challenges of the future.  Lets hope that at the 150th anniversary of Norm Borlaug's birth people will once again be able to look back and tell this kind of story.  A story about humanity continuing to be fed, but without having had to add much if any new farmed land.  Even into his 90s, Borlaug continued to be an articulate proponent for letting farmers use the full toolbox of technologies, including biotechnology, to pursue such goals.  Now its up to us to continue to make that case.

Image of the Norman Borlaug Congressional Medal from Wikimedia Commons.  Graphs mine based on FAO and Geohive data.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com

I tweet about new posts @grapedoc

reade more... Résuméabuiyad

Our Farmers Get An A+ For Low Pesticide Residues

Last week, the USDA released its annual Pesticide Data Program (PDP) report about pesticide residues on food.  This release comes from extensive sampling of crops entering the market during 2012.

Here is the official, summary statement from the USDA:

"The Pesticide Data Program provides reliable data through rigorous sampling that helps assure consumers that the produce they feed their families is safe."  

And the official statement from the EPA:

"The newest data from the PDP program confirm that pesticide residues in food do not pose a safety concern for Americans."

For the agricultural community, particularly those involved in the production of fruits and vegetables, this USDA program is sort of a report card - like a grade to you get for a "group project" of epic proportions.  Imagine you are back in school. You are part of a huge group of fellow students only a few of whom you know, and many of whom are in different countries around the world. The grade that you will receive is based on the work of a random sub-set of these students. All that you can do is try your best and hope that everyone else does the same.  Under those circumstances, it would be a great relief to find that your entire group did such a good job that their collective score was 99.5%!  That is an A+ by any standard. That's what just happened again for the farmers who produce our food. This isn't the first time. There is a great website that allows you to visualize the data from all the years the PDP has been conducted.

What The Data Says

The pesticides used in modern agriculture are now dominated by products which are far less hazardous than what most people imagine.  The use of all pesticide products is highly regulated, and in order to use them, farmers have to qualify for a license and must take continuing coursework to maintain their right to use them.  They are required to adhere to the detailed label restrictions for every product in terms of how much can be used and how long before harvest.  Those label rules are based on an elaborate risk analysis that the EPA performs for each product.  That analysis reflects information about toxicology, metabolism and environmental fate which is generated for each product at a cost of many millions of dollars.  Based on all that information, the EPA sets a "tolerance" for each product specific to each crop on which it is allowed.  If the pesticide residue level on a crop is at or below the tolerance, it has something like a 100-fold safety margin for consumption by us, the consumers.

 So what matters with pesticide residues is not simply whether or not they can be detected with the enormously sensitive laboratory methods available today, but exactly which chemicals are involved and at what levels relative to the tolerances.

So how did farmers do for the 2012 crop when it comes to residues relative to tolerances?  They did great!  Of the 11,893 food samples tested, 99.47% had no chemical residues above tolerance.  47.4% had no detectable residues at all, but for the rest the levels were often far below the tolerances.

Most crops tested in 2012 had NO samples with over-tolerance residues.  Those included apple juice, avocado, baby food made from apple sauce, carrots, peaches or peas, bananas, butter, cantaloupe, cauliflower, mushrooms, onion, orange juice, papaya, plums, tangerines, and wheat grain.

I hate to be like the parent who sees a report card with all As and one B+ and focuses on the B+, but it is interesting to see what was going on with the half of one percent, or 63 of nearly 12 thousand samples that had residues which were over tolerance.  There was only one sweet pepper sample imported from Spain that had such a residue. There were two samples of summer squash from the US with residues slightly above the tolerance. There were four samples of winter squash, two from the US and 2 from Mexico, which had higher than tolerance residues.

The only crops with any significant number of above-tolerance detections were snap peas (32 from among 743 samples) and cherry tomatoes (24 from among 744 samples).  However, even these unusual incidences were not enough above tolerance to be of major concern. For the snap peas, 97% of the samples with those higher detections were imported either from Guatemala, Peru or Mexico.  For the cherry tomatoes, 83% of the above-tolerance samples came from Mexico.   If the "group project" was divided into a US farmers team and a importers team, their respective "scores" would be 99.88% and 98.76% - different, but both still A+ grades.

For just over 4% of the 2012 samples, very low levels of pesticide residues were detected for materials that didn't have a specific tolerance for that crop.  This can happen because of spray drift or contact with equipment after harvest.  The levels were too minor to be of concern to the regulators.  Similar, low level residues are found on organic crops.  In a recent pesticide residue study in Canada, synthetic pesticide residues were detected on more than 40% of organic produce.  Similar results have been seen for organic in the US in the past. Again, these sorts of very low level detections for organic or non-organic crops reflect mainly the sensitivity of analytical lab methods - not any real risk to consumers.

As in previous years, this survey documents the fact that our food supply is extremely safe, and that no one should hesitate to enjoy it based on worries about pesticide exposure.

Rain On The Parade Is Predicted

Unfortunately, we can expect that once again, the Environmental Working Group will take this transparent source of public information and intentionally misconstrue it to generate their "dirty dozen list."   They ignore the transparent public data about which chemicals are found, at what levels, and how that relates to the tolerance.   The EWG ignores those critical details, because to do so suits their agenda of scaring people into purchasing organic (They fail to mention the studies showing similar residues on organic).  If things go as usual, much of the press, blogosphere, and organic advocacy community will uncritically re-transmit the EWG's distortions. The effect can be that many innocent consumers will either avoid health-promoting food options, pay a price premium for organic, or feel guilty about not doing so.

That would be sad.  In fact, this new USDA data shows that the diverse collection of farmers who produce our food deserve appreciation for their care in controlling pests in a way which is also safe for us as consumers.  The truth is that consumers deserve to enjoy what those farmers have produced without fear or guilt.

You are welcome to comment here and/or to email me at savage.sd@gmail.com.  I tweet about new posts @grapedoc

reade more... Résuméabuiyad