GM Foods: The "Magic Bullet"

Wow, speaking of incredibly biased readings... Mike Davis has nothing on Miguel Altieri. In his short book, "Genetic Engineering in Agriculture: The Myths, Environmental Risks, and Alternatives," he completely shuts down the idea of genetically modified foods for the time being. Altieri explores the effects of GM crops on the health of people, crops and animals, the welfare of farmers, and the upkeep of thousands of ecosystems, and basically concludes that we'd be better off without GM foods.

Altieri talks about how biotechnology companies are merely making false promises pertaining to the effects of genetically engineered crops. This innovation in technology is NOT a "magic bullet," and cannot reduce our dependence on pesticides, reduce environmental problems, or even solve world hunger. GM foods are NOT "substantially equivalent" to standard crops, and the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) research on these foods is not adequate enough to start stocking our shelves with them. Also, we have plunged into making these genetically modified foods without fully investigating short and long term effects that they will have on us and the world around us. In essence, we are the rats in a giant experiment, testing these foods before its even entirely positive if they are safe. This is not fair to us, and there are many alternatives available - so why even consider genetically engineered foods?

Even more so, Altieri talks about how these technological innovations are profit driven rather than created for the good of mankind and our ecosystems. As a result, we cannot expect GM foods to truly benefit us, or solve problems with foods scarcity in other nations. Altieri states, "The real thrust of the genetic engineering industry is not to make agriculture more productive, but rather to generate profits" (5). I view this take as WAY too cynical - sure, profit is always a consideration in making choices, but that doesn't mean that decisions can't also be made to help others.

I really found this book to be interesting, but I do not agree with Altieri's close-minded attack on GM foods. Sure, he considers both sides of the debate, but writes the benefits off almost immediately. Now that I've read his take, I feel like I should read up on the other side that is pro-GM foods. I agree that more research should be conducted, but GM foods could potentially help us out in so many different ways. I'm sure we could use alternatives, but the idea of a "magic bullet" just seems too good to pass up.

Factory Farming Causes Spread of Disease

In "The Triangle of Doom" by Christopher Olsen and "The swine flu crisis lays bare the meat industry's monstrous power" by Mike Davis, conditions of mass production of meat are shown to have widespread effects on our health. More specifically, the conditions on feedlots are conducive to the spread of diseases, such as H1N1. "Old fashioned pig pens" have been transformed into industrial animal farms in order to maximize production. The result is a high density of highly packed animals, exchanging sicknesses due to weakened immune systems. In fact, the crowding of animals has brought about a "continual cycling of viruses," which resulted in catastrophic events for both animals and humans.

Terrible impacts of industrialization in pork and poultry markets reached an all-time high during the Livestock Revolution, during which "the (global) share of mean and milk consumed in developing countries rose from 37 to 53 percent and 34 to 44 percent, respectively from 1983 to 1997." Corporate production has greatly been influenced by the urbanization and high demands of human population, and our need for these animals has created the necessary conditions for viral spread and infection. After all, the chance of disease spreading is far greater on a farm with 5,000 pigs than on a farm of the same size with only 100 pigs. If we realized how factory farming is so bad for humans and animals alike, wouldn't we just change our ways? With demand at such a high level, is this ideal even possible?

Not Grass Fed, But At Least Pain-Free

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19shriver.html?emc=eta1

My dad, who has been keeping up with my blog, sent me a fascinating article today regarding the pain of animals on feedlots. With an increasing population and American demand at more than 100 pounds of red meat per person per year , it looks as though there is no end in sight to mass production in the meat industry. For greater efficiency, cattle on feedlots are barely given any room to graze and are fed corn instead of grass at the expense of their comfort. Although there is no solution at present to changing these factory farms, scientists are beginning to look into ways to reduce the discomfort of animals.

Recently, neuroscientists have gathered new information regarding how animals process pain. There are two separate pathways for perceiving this pain in the brain, and scientists believe that by damaging one of these cortexes, they can also eliminate the pain that an animal feels. Even more incredible, scientists are beginning to discover how to genetically engineer animals in such a way where they lack proteins that allow them to feel this pain in the first place. Although experiments on pain have only been conducted on mice at this point, neuroscientists doubt the results will be much different if performed on cattle or chickens.

Now the question is: Is this innovation a good idea? Is it ethical to take away pain that animals feel just so that we can exploit them without guilt? Or is it just to free them of pain if we're going to continue our consuming ways? Will this change exacerbate our over-consuming ways?

To Kill a Chicken

Michael Pollan is a very brave man. In fact, anybody who has the courage to slaughter an animal must be brave - either that, or highly disturbed. In chapter twelve of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," though, Pollan describes the slaughtering process as "economic, ecological, political, ethical, and even spiritual." Who knew all of that was behind the slaughter scene?

Because Michael Pollan had already experienced every other part of the food production process first hand, he felt it necessary to personally kill a chicken for consumption. As he looked into the chicken's eyes, he did not see any signs of fear, and the death was quick and hopefully painless. Pollan notes that after slaughtering about a dozen chickens, the work began to feel almost mechanical - which is a scary thought. How could such an act become almost perfunctory so quickly? Nobody should have to kill animals on a daily basis - but doing it once in a while, or even just once, gives a sense of appreciation, respect, and knowledge.

In addition to describing the slaughter processes, Pollan also talks about the obstacles imposed by the USDA in regard to the "clean food movement." The USDA is so concerned about preventing the spread of illness and blood-borne pathogens that they squelch safe methods of production that allow for richer flavors. Very unfortunate. And even worse, this gives smaller farms a lot of trouble, preventing us as consumers from tasting richer meat that hasn't been mass produced. Is this government involvement really necessary to ensure our safety? Despite USDA approval, can foods that are chemically enhanced for safety really be considered natural and fit for use?

Salvation Army

What better way to spend Valentine's Day than to start my community service project for the final paper? Last semester, my roommate and I volunteered at the Salvation Army, and even without this class I planned to continue this service. It really is nice though to be able to share my experiences at this place.

The final paper is a long time away, so I decided to jot down a few things about today's experience to jog my memory later. First, I should start off by explaining exactly what we do when volunteering at the Salvation Army. We prepare meals from scratch, serve them to the needy individuals in the Ithaca community, and then clean up the mess. This process usually takes about three hours, which is extraordinary considering that the meal is typically for fifty to seventy people.

Today's menu was outstanding: homemade meatloaf with mashed potatoes and gravy, fresh vegetable and tofu stir fry, a large salad, and blueberry crisp with coconut ice cream for dessert. The meatloaf had ground beef, onions, spices, and spaghetti sauce on top. I've never seen such a large pan of meat loaf in my life - and there were two of them! The mashed potatoes were made from fresh ingredients - potatoes, butter, milk, and chives and salt for flavor. At home, we typically only eat the powder mashed potatoes, and honestly, the difference between these two styles is tremendous. The gravy was unbelievable - beef broth with slightly sauteed mushrooms and corn starch for thickness. It was a very nice complement to the meatloaf and mashed potatoes. The vegetable stir fry contained red, yellow, orange and green peppers, celery, mushrooms, onions, and tofu - it was incredibly colorful, and although I didn't get to sample this, I'm sure it was also quite tasty. The blueberry crisp comprised of frozen blueberries, and a topping made of oatmeal, butter, and brown sugar. I would not have imagined this combination to be any good, but coconut ice cream on top was actually a great addition to an already delicious dessert.

The people we served were very appreciative and the kitchen staff was a lot of fun. Three hours done, and two to go for this project. I plan on doing much more than that this semester though - it was a lot of fun and it was great learning how to prepare these dishes for myself and others.

When's the last time YOU saw a pig in person?

As the title of this post suggests, this entry will be about the ethics of eating animals. I am responding to chapter eleven of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," in which Michael Pollan conveys both sides of the carnivore-vegetarian dilemma. Simply put - is it morally wrong to eat meat?

Because of the inhumane treatment of animals on industrial farms, it seems as though we either gain knowledge and become vegetarians, or simply remain ignorant to these conditions and continue eating meat. Because animals are living creatures, don't they receive fair treatment and equality? Just because we are capable of expressing thoughts and conveying our intelligence as human beings, does that mean that we can rightfully exploit other creatures?

Unfortunately, we have been left deeply confused about our connection to animals - on one end, eating meat is traditional, sociable, delicious, and it provides us with protein and other nutrients. But the industrial slaughter is inhumane! Surely if we were able to look a pig or a cow in the face, we'd change our minds about eating meat.

Michael Pollan displayed this dilemma in a way that I never thought of before - a way that even more so justifies the idea of eating meat in my mind. Pollan states that domesticated animals cannot survive in the wild , and without us, they would have become extinct by now. So, we're actually allowing these animals (with the exception of pigs) more time to live! And this is where meat-eaters should make the change: people who really care about the treatment of animals should ensure that their meat products come from farms that treat their animals with care. True, meat would be much more expensive, but isn't it worth it give money to organizations that to regard animals with respect?

The Pleasures of Eating

I really enjoyed Wendell Berry's essay entitled "The Pleasures of Eating," in which we are initially encouraged to view eating not merely as a daily action, but an agricultural act. We mustn't think of ourselves solely as "consumers," but instead as participants in a biological cycle.

The typical American views food as an abstract idea, one that he does not even consider until he sees it in the grocery store or on a dinner plate. No longer do we imagine deep connections between what we eat and its origins, detracting from the overall eating experience. Because we rely so heavily upon commercial suppliers, we have become commercial consumers - focused on price and quantity over quality and knowledge.

Rather than deeply enjoying meals, we hurry through them, moving too quickly to savor each bite or appreciate the underlying beauty of our food's connection with the world. This method of eating meals seems to reflect a much bigger problem in society - we have become a perfunctory nation of haste, neglecting to pay attention to detail. Just as commercial suppliers use as much technology to create as much food as possible, we move quickly and attach ourselves to our cellphones and blackberries to try get as much done in our waking hours as we possibly can. Unfortunately, with this efficiency comes the loss of simple enjoyment of life.

Just like everything else, Wendell Berry states that eating can only be fully enjoyed if its fully understood. Unfortunately, most people - including me, I have to admit - have remained ignorant to the profound connection we, and our food, has with the rest of the world.

I am a bit skeptical about this idea, though. I may not know where all my meals come from or how each ingredient was produced, but I still love to eat more than just about anything. With a little extra effort and information, can the overall experience really improve? Is the extra cost, time, and energy needed to learn about and buy purer items really worth it?

Original Nilla Banana Pudding

Ever since I've been at Cornell, I have wanted to make the homemade banana pudding recipe on the back of the Nilla Wafer Box. Unfortunately, I would always find excuses as to why not put forth effort - I had other work to do, I could just as easily eat pudding in the dining hall, or simply, I was much too lazy.

What better way to spend the afternoon on Superbowl Sunday than to finally complete the task I've been meaning to do for months now. I guess this is kind of a pointless blog, but after only eating packaged or dining hall pudding my entire life, the end result was amazing. Honestly, I was not expecting the difference between store-bought and homemade pudding to be this significant, but putting forth the effort really made a difference. We ate the dish while it was still slightly warm, and the Nilla wafers layered within the mix melted into the freshly sliced bananas and custard that surrounded it.

We intended to save this dish for the Superbowl, but it was really much to good to wait. For anyone who wants a delicious, warm treat on a cold winter day, here it is:

Prep: 30 mins - Cook: 15 mins - Cool: 15 mins

3/4 cup sugar, divided
1/3 cup all-purpose flour
Dash salt
3 eggs, separated
2 cups milk
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
45 NILLA Wafers, divided
5 ripe bananas, sliced (about 3 1/2 cups), divided
Additional NILLA Wafers and banana slices, for garnish

1. Mix 1/2 cup sugar, flour and salt in top of double boiler. Blend in 3 egg yolks and milk. Cook, uncovered, over boiling water, stirring constantly for 10 to 12 minutes or until thickened. Remove from heat; stir in vanilla.

2. Reserve 10 wafers for garnish. Spread small amount of custard on bottom of 1 1/2-quart casserole; cover with a layer of wafers and a layer of sliced bananas. Pour about 1/3 of custard over bananas. Continue to layer wafers, bananas and custard to make a total of 3 layers of each, ending with custard.

3. Beat egg whites until soft peaks form; gradually add remaining 1/4 cup sugar and beat until stiff but not dry. Spoon on top of pudding, spreading evenly to cover entire surface and sealing well to edges.

4. Bake at 350°F in top half of oven for 15 to 20 minutes or until browned. Cool slightly or refrigerate. Garnish with additional wafers and banana slices just before serving.

Makes 8 servings

Nutritional Info Per Serving:
287 calories, 6 g protein, 50 g carbohydrate, 7 g total fat, 2 g saturated fat, 117 mg cholesterol, 134 mg sodium, 1 g dietary fiber

The Food Industry's Ultimate Contradiction

In chapters of eight and nine of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," Michael Pollan traces a delicious meal of roast chicken, roasted vegetables, and a spring salad back to its origin. A very simple, supposedly organic meal, with an underlying complexity of industrial processes - this is the food industry's ultimate contradiction: Organic Industry.

Here, the battle between capitalism and protecting nature takes center stage. Is a compromise between these two realistic? Certainly, the industrialization of organic products comes at a price. In fact, organic farming has unfortunately come to resemble industrial farming systems. This truly is unfortunate - for the word "organic" was initially intended to stand for everything in opposition to industrialization.

Yes, it's true that "organic" chickens get slightly more space to move around, and due to lack of hormones and antibiotics in their diets, they live a few days longer. It's also true that organic foods contains no pesticides or chemicals which harm the soil and could potentially affect our health. However, the only way organic produce can be sold at a reasonable price is by chilling, washing, packaging, and transporting it as one would a nonorganic food. This means shipping food around the country with diesel fuel - further exacerbating our dependence on fossil fuels and our harm to the planet around us. The organic food industry thus functions in an environmentally unsustainable manner, making us question if the added expenses and hassle is truly worth it.

Hidden Costs of the Feedlot

All of this week's readings seem to tie together very well, so I'm going to comment on them collectively in this post. The readings I'm referring to are "Tenderloin's a Steal, but at What Moral Price?" by John Kessler, "Meat and Potatoes" by E. Schlosser, and Chapter Four of "The Omnivore's Dilemma" by Michael Pollan.

The main point that ties these pieces together so well is this: We often make choices about what to eat based on price, but fail to consider the reasons behind why these foods are cheaper. We look to maintain a low budget at the cost of our morality. We remain ignorant to - or simply try to forget - how our food gets from its original source to our dinner plates, pushing past knowledge of animal cruelty and instead focusing on lower costs.

There's only so long we can remain in the dark on this issue, so let me explain. Beef is often cheap because of so called "factory farming" on cattle feedlots. America's animal population is gathered together in cramped quarters for the sake of fulfilling economic logic. It is true that placing so many cows together in a small area and feeding them cheap, federally subsidized corn, is the quickest and most profitable way to run the meat business. It is also true that this method assures the cheapest price of meat for us.

However, the term "cost" does not take into account anything beyond the economics textbook definition of the word. Cheap meat has brought about a large share of environmental and healthy problems, from polluted air and water to the deadly E. Coli diseases that have inflicted out population. We feed cows on feedlots cheap corn because its serves as a cheap form of calories, but this choice has had considerable costs to the health of the cows, and consequently on our own health. Because we inhabit the same ecosystem as the animals we eat, whatever happens to them consequently happens to us.

Additionally, concentration in the meatpacking industry has lowered prices for us, the consumers. This also comes at a great cost. In fact, according to E. Schlosser, the injury rate among meatpackers is the highest of any occupation in the United States. The high speed of production lines may turn large profits, but it also unfortunately is the leading determinant for slaughterhouse injuries. And the pay is next to nothing.

So all of of that leads me to this question: If people did know of the terrible treatment of cows on feedlots, of the inhumane environment in meatpacking plants, and of all the hidden costs that come with buying cheaper meat, would they still make the same decision? Now that I'm aware, will I?