Posted on

Epigenetics: Can We Control our Health?

Genetic testing is great. But it has also given into the fear of inheriting a disease-causing gene. I have debated the test myself. Will my health decisions be different based on the results of the test? My parents and grandparents all died prematurely. Both of my parents passed away from cancer: my mother and her mother of colon cancer, and my father of melanoma complications. Both my grandfathers died fairly early from heart disease. Am I at risk, too? What do the statistics say?

We are not victims of our DNA

Looking at the four leading health issues affecting us today, all can be influenced by how you choose to live your life.

  • Cancer: There’s close to a 40% chance of getting cancer, but only 5-10% of cancers are from an inherited genetic mutation
  • Alzheimer’s: About 10% of people over the age of 65, and 30% of those over 85 get Alzheimer’s, yet only 1% of Alzheimer’s patients get the disease from a deterministic gene
  • Diabetes: 4% of the population lives with diabetes. Type 1 and 2 are known to be both genetic and environmental, and diet can overrule the genetic, especially with type 2
  • Heart Disease: Almost 50% of people have some type of heart disease, which has several genetic implications. However the American Heart Association has a checklist called Life’s Simple 7, which can reduce your risk of heart disease and stroke so you can be proactive about your heart health.

When I heard about Epigenetics, I thought – perfect, if I eat a healthy diet, exercise, and sleep well, I will be safe. “Well, not so fast” said some of my research. While epigenetics is a promising field, there is still much to learn. However, there are still some key takeaways from scientific research on how our lifestyle can affect our DNA.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the study of how your lifestyle can affect how your genes are expressed. ‘Epi’ literally means ‘above’ or ‘on top of’ genetics. Epigenetics has shown that our DNA is affected by the nutrients and chemicals in our food, as well as the cortisol of stress, the endorphins of exercise, and the happiness of love. Let’s focus on food and its influence on our genes.

Our DNA is not our destiny and we can certainly influence it to a large degree by our diet. There are countless studies that show certain foods positively or negatively influence our DNA.

Comparing identical twins is a great example of how the environment can affect one’s health. Even though their DNA is the same, their lifestyle can alter how their genes express themselves. Think of two different people playing the same piano piece. The notes are the same, but the sound, tune, and enjoyment can be completely different.

This was true for my stepmother’s father and uncle who were identical twins – obviously with the same DNA. Both Paul and Uncle Art have/had a gene that made them prone to heart disease. In 1998, they both had open-heart surgery. Afterwards, Paul has continued to take care of himself with diet and exercise. He also has a lot of love in his life with two adoring daughters, grandchildren, and a girlfriend (after his wife passed away). Art, on the other hand, was not quite as zealous about a healthy lifestyle. Uncle Art died in 2010. Meanwhile, Paul is steadily smiling, living, and dating his girlfriend at 101 years old!

How does DNA expression work?

Nessa Cary explains in her book, The Epigenetics Revolution, that “our DNA is smothered in special proteins and small chemicals. Adding or removing them to the DNA can change the gene expression, the function of these cells and the very nature of the cells themselves.”

Your DNA is the blueprint for your body. Each one of your cells holds this six-foot-long strand tightly wrapped and folded within the nucleus. Think of your DNA as a long ladder – each rung holds ‘letters’ or nucleotides which serve as the bases for the rungs. There are about 23,000 combinations of these rungs – which are the genes (just like the company, 23andMe!).

How a gene expresses itself is based on many factors, but it is the chemical reaction around the DNA and how tightly the DNA is wrapped that regulates the genes in our bodies. These processes are called DNA methylation and histone modification, and they are the two predominant ways our genes are expressed.

DNA methylation is the chemical reaction around a gene. For instance, sometimes there is more – or less – of the methylation chemical. This will either turn the gene off or on – like a light switch. This can be either good or bad, depending on the gene.

Methylation is a naturally-occurring and important event. Each cell has its own function, even though the entire strand of DNA is located in every single cell. In an extreme example, you certainly don’t want the hair gene turned on in your heart gene! Or, take for instance, estrogen. As a young woman, your estrogen gene is turned on to create babies and as an older woman, the estrogen is turned off as now one is now waiting for grandchildren.

But if you don’t have the right methylation, then you are subject to a variety of issues such as heart attack, stroke, dementia, cancer, and others.

The M is the methylation that attaches itself to the cytosine one of the four bases, or ‘letters’ on the DNA ladder.

The other way genes are expressed is histone modification. Very simply, think of this complicated structure as a yo-yo. If the string is wrapped too tightly, then the yo-yo doesn’t move. If it is too loose, then you can’t ‘walk the dog’ or ‘shoot the moon’. Chemical reactions alter the histone wrap in the same way. If the DNA is wrapped too tightly, then the genes cannot be expressed. If it’s too loose, then certain genes you want to remain dormant get activated.

Can you eat your way to good DNA health?

We all benefit from listening to our mothers who have told us to eat our fruits and vegetables. Various studies have shown that a diet with more than 5-7 servings a day will positively alter your gene expression and help to prevent age-related diseases.

Certain chemicals in foods (yes, all foods consist of naturally producing chemicals) can positively affect the genes. The chemicals in the food affect the chemicals around the gene, which then affects its expression.

Here are some examples of foods that positively influence your DNA:

We all know that smoking is detrimental to your health. Scientists in Norway gave 102 male smokers a diet rich in antioxidants such as green java tea, bilberry jam, blackberries, and various berry juices. They found that the gene expression in their blood changed for the better. They had improved DNA repair, removal of dead, pre-cancerous, and virus-infected cells, and their overall immune system was enhanced.

In my search for cancer prevention, I learned that nutrition is second to quitting tobacco as a means to prevent cancer. For instance, green tea can suppress tumor growth by changing the DNA of that tumor.

The vegetables that no one likes as a child – broccoli, brussels sprouts and other cruciferous vegetables – have a sulforaphane compound that helps to restore proper balance surrounding the DNA.

Research has shown it can prevent cancer and heart disease development.

Then I heard about the spice turmeric; which has curcumin as its main compound and is known to reduce inflammation. In addition to cancers, its epigenetic ability has been studied for its relation to neurological disorders, inflammation, and diabetes. It is specifically tied to the Cox-2 gene that makes inflammatory compounds. In addition, it is known to decrease tumors. By taking turmeric for the long-term, one could help ward off breast cancer, colon cancer and Alzheimer’s. Yet, it is a double-edged sword, as too much can be toxic.

The American Diabetes Association held a research symposium to understand the role of epigenetics in diabetes and obesity. There is continuing epigenetic research to understand diabetes. They are not only looking at how diet can influence diabetes in an individual but how environmental influences can pass it to the next generation.

Caution: One size does not fit all

There is still so much we don’t know about our DNA. While all DNA is 99.9% similar to each other, what is different is how we live our lives. The foods we eat determine how we methylate, how our DNA is wrapped around the histone (protein), and all the various chemical reactions that uniquely affect us. But remember, we are all unique and what might work for you might not be beneficial for me.

But what we do know is that a diet full of fruits and vegetables will help inhibit age-related diseases.

Posted on

Can Technology Save Urban Farming?

vertical urban farm farming

Population growth, more food production, loss of arable land, water resources, and CO2 emission concerns are all on the forefront of food producers.

Given the fact that the U.N. predicts that 86% of the developed world’s population will live in cities by 2050, shifting food production to urban centers would seemingly solve all of these problems. Vertical farms have begun to sprout up like skyscrapers, packing massive production scale into an area as compact as a city block. While today, they are mostly used for microgreens, optimism prevails where existing rooftops could be repurposed to grow row crops. Vacant lot spaces could find a new use feeding the population.

According to Pitchbook, about $250 million has been invested in the top 25 Indoor Farms and related technologies. Environmental sustainability is a draw for impact investors. AeroFarms has four farms in Newark, New Jersey, one of which is the largest in the world: 70,000 feet and harvests up to 2 million pounds per year using 95% less water than field farming. Another contender, Gotham Greens, supplies Whole Foods in the New York City metro area with pesticide-free produce from their rooftop greenhouses.

Consider the potential impact:

  • Urban farms can be set up next to its consumers, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions associated with transportation and storage
  • They take up far less space than traditional, land-based farms, enabling them to create far more end product per acre and potentially making up for the loss of arable land
  • They can reduce the need for pesticides, eliminate the risk of extreme weather, and be built to conserve water and other traditional inputs 
  • They can be built effectively anywhere people live, bringing high-quality, nutritious food to growing communities all over the world, no matter the climate or land quality

A Promise Delayed

At least that’s the theory.

But, in reality, urban farming continues to lag behind its potential to disrupt the food system due to a range of shortcomings. Firstly, we eat more than just lettuce. Indoor farming is excellent for tasty greens, but expanding to staples in our diet, like fruits and vegetables will be tough with the technology that exists today.

And does this method actually reduce farming’s carbon footprint? Vertical farming operations might actually be more resource-intensive than outdoor production, given their reliance on artificial lights, water distribution, and climate control.

That’s on top of the fact that most urban farmers still can’t make a living at it, according to a 2016 study published in the British Food Journal.

As of today, urban farming – particularly the vertical farms that are envisioned to occupy skyscrapers and rooftops all over the world – is too expensive, too resource-intensive and too niche to truly reach its potential as a revolutionary new form of agriculture.

The Future of Food?

Could new technologies rebalance this equation and bring urban farms into wider use?

That’s the hope of a new generation of farmers and innovators working on ways to bring the power of Silicon Valley to the food we all eat, whether it is grown on an outdoor farm or in a warehouse. These efforts include everything from combining big data analytics and machine learning with genome editing to design better crops; creating robots that can pick apples, raspberries and other foods; and even using drones to gather insights that farmers and ranchers can use to more accurately plan and manage their facilities.

These new capabilities include:

Big Data Analytics: “Leaders in the agriculture industry have begun to use machine learning as a competitive advantage,” says Yochay Ettun, CEO and co-founder of cnvrg.io, a startup platform that is working to help data scientists manage and build machine learning models. For food producers, this has the potential to improve efficiency by offering everything from more accurate crop yield prediction to species recognition.

 “Machine learning has the ability to disrupt every industry, from agriculture to finance to travel. If society continues to invest and support its data science teams even in the agriculture industry there can be changes as drastic as the industrial revolution.”

– Yochay Ettun, cnvrg.io CEO & Co-Founder

The Internet of Things (IoT) is also making inroads in the controlled environment of indoor agriculture, in part because there is so much about farming that’s universal. From temperature to water, to nutrients, humidity and more, every single farm or indoor operation is managing the same seven to 10 different functions. The only difference is the scale of what they’re doing.

IoT can bring any scale down to size, adding in automation features that help small operators scale.

“Just think about how much more efficient your business can be when you can know what’s going on and be able to control your system remotely without staring at the plants all day,” says Dan Nelson, CEO and co-founder of Grow Computer, a company that is developing what it calls “an operating system for indoor agriculture” that will enable operators both large and small to harness the full potential of IoT and automation for ag applications, regardless of the hardware they’re using.

The five functions Grow Computer is providing to growers right now include monitoring, controls, automation alerts, and data, all of which can be managed from any internet-connected device. The idea is that a farmer can choose their own component tree, their own layout, their own processes, and then layer the software on top of it all, basically functioning like Microsoft Windows for everything that goes into an agriculture system.

“The biggest challenge that we see in urban farming is that, unless you have a tremendous amount of investible capital to build out your system, it’s really hard to be profitable,” Nelson explains. “You don’t get the benefit of these systems that large international agriculture companies get when you’re the small grower that’s trying to convert a small warehouse into a farm.”

“What we’re hoping for is that we’re going to help people build better vertical farming businesses at any size by helping them optimize their systems, getting them to the point that their competition is.”

– Dan Nelson, Grow Computer CEO & Co-Founder

Sustainable Lighting: According to Prof. Marc van Iersel of the Horticultural Department at University of Georgia’s College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences, the typical indoor farming operation has to dedicate as much as 60% of its budget to energy costs alone, usually due to the artificial lighting that is required to support the system. As of 2019, this electricity is costing U.S. indoor farmers as much as $600 million per year.

This puts urban and vertical farmers at a disadvantage to their outdoor competitors, who get their light from the sun – for free, not to mention the substantial carbon footprint that goes into that power production.

A number of companies are currently working to address this shortcoming, building sustainable, LED-based lighting systems that are cheaper to run and designed to better support the plants they’re illuminating. New advances in LED light technology can, according to the Washington Post, do everything from change “how plants grow, when they flower, how they taste and even their levels of vitamins and antioxidants. The lights can also prolong their shelf life.”

Sananbio, the sister company of the world’s largest LED chip maker, Sanan Opto-Electronics – is bringing this promise to market with its photobiology technology, which is based on the interactions between light and living things. Its core focus is the optimization of lighting spectrums to allow plants to thrive at all stages of growth.

Per the company: “Our unique spectra has been trialed on a multitude of cultivars and our results have shown that by optimizing the spectrum based off of the cultivar we are able to increase nutritional value, drive unique genetic expression, increase active naturally occurring chemical compounds, and shorten flowering times.”

And that’s just one example of how smarter lighting can make things easier for vertical farmers.

Automated lighting systems, which can control when lights are on and off as well as optimize these cycles to maximize yield, can help operators not only cut down on management costs but prolong the life of the LED lights themselves.

The average LED lasts for about 50,000 hours, or more than 13 years if used for 10 hours per day. Optimization systems can improve the impact of these on periods to extract maximum plant benefits while extending the lives of the lights themselves.

Big Companies are Taking Notice

These innovations aren’t isolated to startups and growth companies either. Some of the largest technology providers in the world – including household names such as GE and Bayer – are also working on innovations for indoor agriculture.

Logiqs, for instance, a global logistics provider that has been designing and building warehouse automation and horticulture systems for more than 40 years, has introduced GreenCube, a modular indoor growing system that incorporates standard components from the company’s existing pallet storage systems and other growing racks. It is designed to work with the company’s automation equipment and sensors, which are also standardized, in order to keep the function of the entire system as simple as possible.

As Logiqs explains: “The goal of our design was to make a truly sustainable vertical farming system, from both an environmental point of view as well as from a financial standpoint.” And it’s worth noting that major food brands are buying in, as well.

“By partnering with urban farms, we can reduce our footprint, increase food security and livelihoods, and improve biodiversity,” says John Tran, Director of Sustainability & Responsibility at Pernod Ricard, the European alcohol conglomerate that today owns Absolut vodka, Jameson Irish Whiskey, Kahlua coffee liqueur, and other brands. The company launched its “Sustainability & Responsibility Roadmap for 2030” this past April.

“We’ve seen an increased use case for urban farming in 2019,” Tran says. “While limited space poses a challenge for high-scaled consumer products, we view it as supplementing traditional farms while also solving for some of the most pressing issues in highly dense urban areas. Urban farming provides a total value, increasing biodiversity and reducing ecological impact, which will help us improve our agricultural footprint and achieve our sustainability goals.”

Posted on

An Interview with Gabrielle Reece: Ask Yourself “Why?”

Many of you know her as a world-class beach volleyball player, but Gabrielle Reece is a champion on and off the court. She has created a life toward making the world a better place. She uses her athleticism, wisdom, life experiences, and beauty to help others, especially women, achieve peak fitness, good health, and overall well-being for themselves and their entire family.

Her list of accomplishments is long: a mother, a wife, a health and fitness expert, professional volleyball player, first female spokesperson for Nike, host for NBC’s competition series STRONG, a bestselling author, a model, and a mentor to children. Adding to this already remarkable list, she and her husband, Laird Hamilton, co-manage a training program called XPT and Laird Superfood – a product line of coffee supplements to fuel you through the day.

Gabby has become a dominant influencer in health and wellness over the years. But it is her warmth, honesty, and toughness during training that sets her apart.

I met Gabby at XPT Elite, where my son and I signed up for the Malibu training program that requires you to adapt quickly to various physical and mental situations. We were looking for a fun end of the summer adventure before he entered The Marines, The Basic School. We wanted to optimize our overall physical fitness, mental toughness, and recovery. Of course, we learned a lot more than that. We also learned more about how and why we eat and how that plays a critical role in how we function every single day.

Endurance training at Reece’s XPT Elite Program. Left: Lucy scaling the deep end with weights. Right: Reece fitting Lucy with a weighted belt for more underwater exercises.

Eating without Thinking

We all do it. I just sat down and ate a dark chocolate bar. Why? Was I bored? Was I hungry? Did I crave chocolate? Until I talked with Gabby, I never asked myself these questions. I just reached for a snack. Most of us do exactly that. We eat for all kinds of reasons besides being hungry. We stress eat. We eat to reward ourselves. We eat because it is lunch time, but not necessarily because we are hungry. We eat a snack out of boredom. We eat for comfort after a difficult conversation.

But that is just it — I wasn’t thinking. I was not asking why. What struck me as unique was Gabby’s approach to food – and to life. Gabby is very self-aware. Gabby watches the world, watches her reaction to it and doesn’t judge either herself or others. She has an uncanny ability to see and immediately understand a person. Her ability to identify someone’s reason behind an action, or non-action, was what made the greatest impression.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZR-x-a4maQ

By practicing awareness and looking within for the answers, Gabby brings mindfulness into her daily life, something we can all challenge ourselves to do if we really want to achieve whole-body health and wellness. My conversation with her forced me to look inwards at decisions I make all the time and brought a new level of understanding about my habits.

Here are some insights from our conversation…

Lucy: Let’s start with the basics. What kind of foods do you eat?

Gabby: I eat foods as close to the source as possible and avoid processed foods. If you looked at most of my meals, I have a type of vegetable, good quality protein, maybe a sweet potato. Quinoa comes in and out. Rice is rare. Our family’s dinner plate is colorful with a variety of vegetables.

“I don’t believe in any single diet – I just believe that eating a moderate amount of healthy wholesome food is good.”

Sometimes I eat popcorn with coconut oil. I manage my sugar intake. There are better kinds of sugar like coconut sugar. When I do eat sugar, I honor myself with it and don’t make it a habit. If I feel that I can eat whatever I want, then my impulses are minimized. I feel it out. I liken it to a rest day with training. The same is with food, I can occasionally splurge.

L: You see a lot of people come through your XPT program. What do you say to them about their diet?

G: I always find it fascinating that people don’t know what to eat. It is so simple yet the media and product marketing messages prop things up as healthy when in reality, they are not. The other day I was in the grocery store and I saw a very sweet couple whose daughter was friends with ours. They were picking up a vegan pizza because they were making a ‘healthy’ choice. Just because something says vegan doesn’t necessarily mean it is good for you.

L: Do you count and watch your calories?

G: I don’t. I eat and listen to my body. There are cycles when I am more hungry other times and will eat more. I stay hydrated and eat healthy fat. If I don’t, I end up having different cravings that I have to manage. For instance, I will go to sugar if I am not doing those things.

I focus on what I could eat right now that makes sense. I used to eat a lot of food when I was training all the time. But right now, my training isn’t as much so I eat when I am hungry. I might have a giant lunch and skip dinner, or a light lunch and a bigger dinner. It depends on my day.

I do pre-decide, though. For instance, before we go out to dinner, I will decide not to eat the bread that gets passed around before dinner begins. That usually works for me.

L: Besides healthy eating, what is your philosophy around food and diet?

G: When I look at food, I always look inward. I ask myself, where I am at and why I am eating it. I stay self-aware.

I tap into how I am really feeling and why I have those feelings. I try to understand the impulse of chewing. A lot of this is just biological impulses. Am I really hungry? Or do I just want to chew something? I might be hungry, but I might be bored. Am I eating because I am mad or feeling belligerent? Either one is ok. I accept where I am in the moment and I am ok.

It is important to have a truthful dialogue with yourself.

When it has moved into negative behavior – then there can be shame. We internalize that, which isn’t any good. Instead, just take ownership of it. Let me see how I can deal with these feeling to make myself feel differently. Then will the impulse to eat something diminish?

I don’t judge. I check to see if I can make myself feel differently. I will breathe, walk, or even give myself the permission to be unreasonable. Can I focus on myself and be just be grateful for something in my life?

“I believe that the only way to understand one’s self is to have that brutal honestly. The only way we can talk ourselves off that ledge is to understand how we feel. We are responding to that. That is power. And we have the power to change.” 

We need to understand we have a choice. I am choosing to go to work, to go to the grocery store. I am taking personal accountability and responsibility for my actions.

L: What are your thoughts on the challenges to maintain a healthy lifestyle as we grow older?

G: A lot of people diet and exercise and don’t lose a single pound. Even though they are moving, they are still not losing weight. It is not just about calories in and calories out.

They have to go to the next level and identify their constant level of stress. Staying up late, not hydrating, holding onto childhood trauma are reasons why weight won’t come off. People connect weight with food and exercise, but there is a lot more to it.

I see some clients who have a small accumulation of bad habits that they don’t get away with as they get older. People tend to chalk it up to age, but it is so much more. It can easily be something inside, for instance from childhood, and then you must get rid of that. The frustration of not losing weight can be related to holding onto what happened in the past.

L: What do you recommend for a healthy lifestyle?

G: Pay attention to a mind that is open and honest with yourself. You can shift negative patterns to positive: meditations, breathwork, and being kind to yourself. Think about yourself as an entire organism – your diet, your mind, your feelings, your exercise are all connected. Finally, know that you have the power to change what you want about yourself.

 

A Common Thread of Mindfulness

I was sitting out on the porch again, like usual, enjoying a chilly evening with my husband and I thought about that chocolate bar. Instead of mindlessly meandering to the kitchen to grab it, I remembered Gabby’s words — why? Why am I thinking about eating that chocolate? Am I bored? Am I stressed? No and no. I am happy. I break off a small piece and treat myself to a bite. Smiling, I am reminded to be forgiving and kind to myself.

                 

For more on Gabby, listen to Mark Devine‘s podcast.

For more on Laird’s diet, listen to Graham Bensinger interview

Posted on

Ag in the Classroom: FFA Spotlight on Lauren LaGrande

ffa lauren lagrande

The Future Farmers of America (FFA) is the premier youth organization preparing members for leadership and careers in the science, business and technology of agriculture. In an effort to spread the word about the inspiring efforts of leading FFA members, Dirt to Dinner will be highlighting some participant stories.

We would like to introduce Lauren LaGrande. Her education in ag started on her family farm and has taken her back to the classroom. Her mission is to educate future generations on something that connects all of us – where our food comes from. Here is her story told from her unique point of view.

My name is Lauren LaGrande and I am a proud fourth-generation farmer from Northern California. My family grows mostly rice, almonds, and walnuts, along with a few row crops we keep on rotation. My younger brother and I also manage a small herd of cattle between us, which has helped fund us through college.

A passion for agriculture was instilled in me at a young age and was ignited further throughout my college years. My earliest memories stem back to sitting on my dad’s lap in the harvester, watching the tines on the reel gobble up rice.  I grew up participating in 4-H and the FFA, which are two experiences I will always be grateful for. In high school for FFA, I showed livestock, competed in agricultural communications proficiency contests, job interview contests, and project competitions.

A new lens on the industry

While all this was going on, I was asked to blog for a commodity group, as they wanted a younger generation’s take on agriculture, which was where my passion for connecting people with their food sprouted. This passion took deeper roots during my time at Oregon State University, where I majored in agricultural sciences with minors in leadership, writing, and communications. I interned with commodity groups, animal agriculture alliances, conservation groups, and spent some time lobbying in Washington D.C. with a cooperative we are involved in, all of which expanded my views and perspectives on agriculture. My once narrow “production” lens of agriculture was now broadened to see the industry from a societal, regulatory, cultural, and legislative lens.

This new “ag lens” continued to expand through my college courses where I learned to appreciate agriculture beyond a production standpoint and appreciate its societal, economic, and environmental contributions. And today, I feel the same passion when I am able to help a student develop or deepen their appreciation and respect for an industry that not only feeds and clothes their hometown, their state, their country, but also the world.

I continued on to graduate school where I received my master’s degree in agricultural communications from Texas Tech University (Wreck ‘Em Tech!) and conducted research on consumer trust in the agriculture industry. I now teach agricultural communications courses at Oregon State University and am currently helping to develop a program in this concentration..

I remember getting my undergraduate degree here at Oregon State and wishing they had an agricultural communications program. I wished I knew how to talk about an industry I was so deeply rooted in to those who knew nothing about it. I am so ecstatic that Oregon State is in the works of developing an agricultural communications program. This will serve as a curriculum that I hope all students, whether within the agriculture, forestry, and natural resources fields or not, can benefit from. No matter your diet, food production preferences, or lifestyle choices, we all eat. Therefore we are all connected by agriculture.

Challenges in the education space

Many personal and professional experiences have revealed to me how little the public knows about where their food comes from, how it’s managed, and who is producing it. This lack of understanding fuels my burning desire to connect people with their food. I am very humbled and blessed to be back at my alma mater and to have the chance to help students find their agricultural voice and to help those without an agriculture background understand some of our practices.

I think one of the most significant challenges I face as a teacher and as an agriculturalist is the public’s mistrust in agriculture. Consumers not only vote on production regulations in the voting booths, but with their dollars every time they visit a grocery store, without really knowing what they are standing behind.  My master’s thesis research revealed to me that agriculture doesn’t have a “reputation issue” per se, but it has a trust issue.

Today’s consumers do not trust the agriculture industry. They are constantly bombarded with news stories and articles saying how “big ag” is pumping their foods with chemicals and destroying the environment, which are misconceptions we as an industry need to address and debunk. Agriculture has a great story to tell and we, as its  authors,  need to use our voices to help educate.

Overcoming obstacles through teaching

One of my biggest successes in this role thus far came from an email I received from a student who didn’t come from an agriculture background. She explained she took my class not knowing what agriculture really consisted of and wanted to learn more behind the “scary” articles that get blasted all over the internet. She thanked me for helping her understand agriculture, a subject that affects all of us every day.

In one of the classes I teach, students are required to do a feature story regarding an aspect of the industry of their choice. They’re also required to conduct two interviews that would add depth and credibility to the story. This assignment allowed this particular student to talk with farmers about her concerns and research her agricultural topic from both sides of the issue to come to an informed opinion. She fell so in love with her topic that she decided to pursue an internship in that same agriculture area. Although this was just one instance and just one student, I am so proud that I was able to play a small part in allowing someone who knew nothing about agriculture become passionate and informed.

Agriculture is more than just an industry; it is a lifestyle and way of life for so many. One that stems from hard work, passion, humility, craft, science, and community. It is my hope that down the road in the future, agriculture is known and trusted for all of these components and more.

A few tips on getting involved in ag

Want to know more about ag? Ask questions and make connections! Reach out to your county’s co-op extension office if you have a question about something you saw on your drive home, like an airplane flying on seed or if you want to know how to plant cherry tomatoes in your backyard.

Farmers are some of the friendliest and most passionate people I know. Talk to your local grower at your farmer’s market and ask questions about how they are growing the food you are taking home. Can’t get your “boots on the ground”? That is okay! Luckily, today’s world allows us to make connections online and globally. Reach out to agricultural professionals and organizations through their websites and social media pages.

Interested in learning directly more about agriculture? Sign up for an agricultural course or class, whether it’s at the high school or college level or joining a program such as Master Gardeners through a local co-op.

Have a giving heart? Volunteer with your local Community Supported Agriculture project, FFA chapter, community garden, extension office, etc. Get your hands in the soil and work with those who cherish the land and you’ll harvest more than just vegetables.

There are so many ways to get involved in the ag space; simply reach out and you’ll have roots planted in agriculture in no time!

Stay tuned for more Future Farmers of America stories like this. If you would like to get involved with FFA, visit www.ffa.org. If you’re a fellow FFA and want to share your story, or tell us more about an inspiring FFA member, please email us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com – we’d love to hear your stories!

 

Posted on

2 Trade Deals and Plant Food in a Pear Tree: Top News in 2019

This year’s reporting sets the stage for some tough discussions for the ag industry to what no doubt will be a series of challenges in 2020 – and beyond. Though it seems out of our hands, we as consumers have serious pull here based on our purchase decisions. And for the future of food and agriculture at large.

Overview

“Gee, that’s a tough one. So much happened it’s almost impossible to pick just a few!”

2019 has been jam-packed with news headlines affecting our choices in food, the well-being of our farmers, and how new technologies will disrupt the industry. Every day, we’ve heard and read about…

  • Throughout the year, farmers remained highly focused and surprisingly hopeful on trade issues, especially involving China and our North American trading partners
  • African swine fever is reshaping entire markets, with the virus resulting in 40% of the global pig population to be culled
  • The ongoing RoundUp trial regarding glyphosate has enormous implications for farm production, Bayer’s balance sheet, and legal stakes with human health
  • Investment in ag technology has exploded in areas such as big data, precision farming, and food supply transparency, with all sorts of new doors opening for all parts of the food system
  • And the rapid developments in genetic engineering, such as GMOs, CRISPR, and synthetic biology, have created an ongoing debate over their regulation worldwide
  • A focus on soil health and other dimensions of ‘regenerative agriculture’ has become more critical for the health of future harvests
  • Claims and counter-claims have been made about finding the right balance between a healthy diet and best use of natural resources for our global health
  • Food labeling requirements have gathered steam as consumers drive greater demand for transparency along the entire supply chain
  • Food insecurity once again is on the rise around the world, as the United Nations reports

So, how do you pick from that hefty list? Here’s my attempt to weed out the most critical issues as we come into 2020. Take a look at my countdown and let me know your thoughts on Facebook or Twitter!

#4. Food Safety.

The African Swine Flu swept through Asia and decimated the pig population. There are 770 million domestic pigs on various farms worldwide – at least 300 million have died. That is a lot of pigs to bury. China was hit the hardest as they have 440 million pigs – almost half of which have been affected. This does not only have implications for the hog farmers, but it shows how quickly a virus can spread around the world.

Food safety and animal welfare are critical components here:

  • How can we improve the quarantine process for animals and poultry?
  • Will the African Swine Flu virus spread? What are the implications?
  • Will the reduced pork supply change our buying habits? If so, what other forms of protein are we likely to eat?

This is an incredible amount to think about as we head into the new year, and we are only on the first point!

 #3. Weather alert.

When a 95-year-old corn and beans farmer in Central Illinois, who is still farming the 1,500 acres he owned since the 1920s, says he can’t remember a worse spring for planting in seven decades of farming, we all should pay attention. Add lingering wet conditions to the mix, and you have the prescription for significant harvest delays and losses – we’re talking up to half of last year’s corn and soybean crop levels in parts of the upper Midwest.

Bad weather is nothing new for farmers, of course. But the extent and severity of this year’s bad conditions caused huge damage, disrupted lives and entire communities, and only complicated the production picture for farmers already reeling from steady income declines.

Maybe more significantly, these reports may prove to be harbingers of the bigger questions yet to come for agriculture about climate change:

  • Will consumers accept seed technology and gene editing to help crops grow in wetter, cooler, drier, and/or drought conditions?
  • Can the four-row crops, canola, soybeans, cotton, and corn, be modified to grow in new climate regions?
  • Are there specialized crops that are more adaptable to varied climates?
  • What technologies and farming practices will be implemented to keep our soil secure? No-till farming and cover cropping quickly come to mind here.

And focusing on farmers is just a piece to a much larger puzzle. The right response to climate change involves all industries: from the municipalities, to the golf course, to the housing developer and homeowner, and beyond.

#2. It’s all about the trade.

I wish I had a dime for every time the word “China” appeared in a farm-related story this year. By now, we’ve all figured out just how important China is to U.S. agricultural interests – not just soybean producers, but a lot of other growers, suppliers, and people along the supply chain, too.

That political football has been kicked around all year, with a fair amount of optimism with China’s agreement to buy $50 billion in agricultural goods, up from $23.8 billion in 2017 (52% of which was comprised of soybeans). We hope to get this all sorted out so we can get back to normal in a huge and growing trade relationship.

Finalized on December 10th, the USMCA (U.S.- Mexico-Canada Agreement), formerly NAFTA, was a win for American agriculture. Canada and Mexico are integral to our trade health, as these countries are the U.S.’s first and third largest export markets for food and ag, respectively. Together, this equals about 28% of total food and ag exports in 2017. The USMCA is anticipated to increase US ag exports by $2 billion. Even though NAFTA was a free trade zone, there were still some tariffs and quotas.

The new USMCA will be a win for U.S. dairy farmers, as this agreement will open up opportunities for milk products such as cheese, cream, and yogurt. It will also expand U.S. poultry and egg market access to Canada. Mexico and the U.S. will have the same grading standards for ag products. Finally, the three countries will have the same sanitary standards, based on science as well as agricultural biotechnology and gene editing.

As Trump pushes forward with success on these fronts, it still brings forward new questions for the future:

  • What will China buy to reach $50 billion? More soybeans?
  • Will trade always be used as a leverage point between the U.S. and other countries?
  • How can we protect the U.S. while still ensuring we have global fair trade?
  • Will we have other multilateral agreements such as USMCA?
  • Will China’s theft of intellectual property continue to occur?

#1. Plant-based protein.

I used to call it “alternative meat,” but the story is a lot bigger than that now. Plant-based meats, eggs, fish, milk, leather, and even collagen for your skin, are here to stay. The speed with which companies like Beyond Meat and Memphis Meats gathered steam (and investor dollars) absolutely amazed me in 2019.

According to AgFunder, ‘The alternative meat market sales growth is expected to grow from $4.6 billion in 2018 to $140 billion ten years from now, growing to 10% of the total meat market.’

But let’s put this in perspective: the total animal products industry in 2018 was close to $2.23 trillion and is expected to grow to $3 trillion by 2025. There is plenty of opportunity for all types of protein producers. But I never would have expected to be deluged with fast-food ads on television pushing exciting new vegetable-based burgers, or to see so many people willing to give it a try.

To me, that’s surprising, but in a very good way: consumers should have a choice. They should be able to choose products that meet their tastes and align with their values.

If someone wants to eat a veggie burger or a meat product produced in a lab, for health reasons, for environmental concerns, for moral values, so be it. Just don’t tell me that I have to eat one or the other. Let me choose. But let me choose facts, not marketing. Let the markets work.

As more and more consumers indicate their preference for plant-based foods, what implications does this have?

  • Are consumers getting the facts about meat and dairy, or is it marketing?
  • As consumers move away from meat, how are they getting their daily recommended protein requirements?
  • Demand for plants and meat will rise as our population grows. How do global producers sustainably meet demand?
  • What kind of labeling information does the consumer require to make an educated choice?

This is a profoundly important story about how responsive our food system is proving to be. Consumer tastes and preferences are changing as society changes around us. That should surprise no one. But the story of how fast and how well the food system can recognize that change and accommodate it is indeed newsworthy and earns my number one spot for the Top Food and Ag story of 2019. It will be fascinating to see where the story goes from here.

Posted on

5 Surprising Facts about Our Organic Foods

Did you know that vitamin C doesn’t cure the common cold? And that Twinkies don’t last forever – they’re only fresh for around 25 days? And that gum doesn’t stay in your gut for 7 years – it passes through just like everything else? These myths have been proven false by credible institutions.

So, in this age of transparency and information, how can we still believe so many falsehoods?

There’s another big misconception in the food industry. And with two kids and a goal to prepare nutritious foods for us this holiday season, I decided to closely examine what it means when a food is labeled “organic”. Is it really worth splurging for that organic heritage turkey and finding herbs and vegetables locally grown on organic farms to prepare and season our dishes?

What I’ve found when asking what “organic” means to people is that it’s a very contentious term with very strong opinions. It means many different things to different people: pesticide-free, GMO-free, small local farms, nutrient-dense, richer soil…the list goes on.

For many, choosing organic foods is an emotional decision. Mintel reports that most of us purchasing “natural” or “organic” products don’t fully understand the nuances of these claims, but just feel better about buying them, for one reason or another. This leads to most of us purchasing these products for our family while not knowing precisely why, besides a broad feeling of moral obligation.

So, despite its perceived flexibility in definition, what makes a food officially “organic” in the U.S. is not as wholly-encompassing as many of us think it is.

So what does “organic” really mean, then?

In its simplest terms, organic foods must be produced while protecting natural resources, conserving biodiversity, and cultivated with no genetic engineering or ionizing radiation and with mostly natural pesticides and fertilizers.

For a food to be considered “organic”, it requires the approval of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS). The overarching purpose of the AMS is to create worldwide marketing opportunities for U.S. producers of food, fiber, and specialty crops while also ensuring the quality and availability of applicable food products.

In addition to the National Organic Program, the AMS oversees a variety of other programs affecting our food and ag system, including food quality protection, hemp production and country of origin labeling. With the U.S. organic industry under the scrutiny of the AMS, all such foods must be produced using their approved methods, whether it is grown in the U.S. or another country.

So now we understand that organic foods can’t be genetically engineered nor cultivated with popular synthetic pesticides, like Roundup. But what about other claims, like “pesticide-free”, “clean”, “locally-farmed”, “grass-fed”, and all those other terms that are tossed about when thinking of organic food? Let’s take a closer look.

Organic food can have pesticides?

Contrary to popular belief, organic foods have pesticides, whether used directly on the crops or not. Organic foods can be treated with pesticides from the USDA’s approved substances list, which includes products like copper sulfate and hydrogen peroxide. Though organic farmers mostly use natural pesticides on their crops, there are synthetic pesticides approved for use on organic crops, as well. Also, the USDA reports that pesticide residues are found on both organic and conventional crops alike in its Pesticide Data Program, but all crops are held to regulations governing safe consumption levels.

Aren’t organic foods locally farmed?

Just as conventional farms have larger and smaller operations throughout the country, so do organic farms. In fact, many larger farms have both organic and conventional operations. Because of this flexibility, it is awesome that we can find both conventional AND organic raspberries on our grocery shelves in the dead of winter. An amazing feat!

Organic foods are also imported into the U.S. every day from countries all over the world. All farms exporting their organic products to the U.S. must also be organically certified according to the USDA organic regulations. Though not all organic products indicate their country of origin, the products must still comply with the U.S. National Organic program.

How about only grassfed and no drugs?

Contrary to popular belief, organic livestock can indeed be raised in a feedlot; purchasing organic meat does not guarantee grass-fed or grass-finished animals. However, the USDA organic seal on meats does mean a few other things that may be important to you.

For instance, organic livestock must be raised and must have year-round access to the outdoors. They must also be fed an all-organic diet (which can include organic grains), and may not be given antibiotics or hormones. However, they can receive vaccines for disease prevention and a handful of approved drugs, like pain and deworming medications.

It’s important to note that, for the U.S., hormones are prohibited for use on all chickens, turkeys, and pigs – whether organic or not. So if you’re buying your family organic chicken tenders only to avoid added hormones, save your money and buy conventional chicken! Furthermore, almost all dairy cows, both organic and conventional, don’t receive additional hormones, like rBST.

But at the least, aren’t organic foods better for us and the environment?

Many of us assume that organic foods are better for our bodies than their conventional counterparts. However, a consensus has not been formed by the scientific community on this hypothesis, as many studies have had inconsistent research parameters, such as too small of sample size to apply to a larger population.

Of particular note, several studies have shown that those eating organic foods more frequently are less likely to be overweight and have heart disease, but it turns out they were more likely to practice healthier diet and exercise choices, in general.

But you know what’s definitely better for all of us? Eating a fresh salad instead of a bowl of Annie’s organic and grass–fed mac & cheese! No offense to Annie’s – my kids are obsessed with their shells with white cheddar 😉 But the answer is to just eat lots of veggies, no matter how they’re grown!

There’s another big issue here that’s not as black and white as “organic” or “conventional”. If nutrient-rich soil is of utmost importance for you, then you’ll need to do some research and look into the farms growing your produce. As stewards of the land, good farmers – whether of organic or conventional crops – take great care of their soil, crops and livestock, which is the most integral part in creating healthy, wholesome foods.

Thinking about it a different way, let’s say you lease a modestly-priced, mid-range SUV for your family, while your neighbors, the Joneses, purchase a top-of-the-line, luxury SUV. Darn those Joneses! Three years later, when the lease is up, you’re eager to trade in your car because you’ve taken such good care of it. However, your neighbors have significantly damaged their once-sweet ride and must suffer the consequences. It’s not the model of the car, or the type of farm, that matters…it’s the owner – the farmer.

I hope this has been enlightening for you as doing this research was for me. It’s definitely opened my eyes to how easily we make decisions based on marketing and misperceptions without thinking about what’s really important – our ongoing health and wellness that can only be achieved by making sound dietary choices.

For my family and me, that means paying less attention to gimmicky food labels and simply just eating tons more fresh fruits and veggies, organic or not.

Posted on

Soil Health: A Personal Chronology of a Global Paradigm Shift

Michael Doane is a guest columnist for Dirt to Dinner and will be sharing a series of articles on how restoring our lands is the best tool for sustainable food systems. Read his first post on Land Degradation: The History Lesson We Are Still Learning.

Michael is the Global Managing Director for Sustainable Food and Water for The Nature Conservancy. Michael started farming at a young age and is a partner in his family’s cattle and row crop farming operation located in Kansas. He combines his passion for agriculture with his love for nature in leading one of The Nature Conservancy’s top global priorities to provide food and water sustainably.

A Journey Begins

I drove my tractor and disk combination to the edge of the field and paused to survey the scene. Across a vast area was an overrun combination of weeds, large and small, and crop residues. It looked unruly, not cared for properly, and I was about to fix that. It was my first time to turn the soil on this farm and at just 18 years old, I felt a sense of energy about the task.

Having grown up on a working farm, I embraced my role as steward of the land. I didn’t know much about this particular field, but I knew the farmer managing it before me had some wild ideas on how to farm. The field always appeared overgrown; I had never seen it clean and neat, freshly turned to cleanse it from weeds and prepared for planting.

The opportunity in my mind was to make good on what I saw as neglected duties of the previous farmer to manage the field properly.

Little did I know I was about to begin a lifelong journey to understand soil health.

I pulled into the field and prepared the disk to turn the soil, anticipating a long day of working a rough, compacted field. But, as I lowered the disk into the field for the first time, I didn’t feel or hear the tractor begin to pull as I had experienced so many times before. I quickly craned my neck to inspect the situation behind me, fully expecting a breakdown – either the disk had not descended into the soil or perhaps it had somehow become unattached from the tractor. Instead, the disk was there and doing its duty, slicing through and aggressively turning the soil.

The soils in North Central Kansas are variable but mainly light brown in color. From my tractor seat, I noticed the soil in this field was much darker than any field I had ever worked. Perplexed, I stopped the tractor to get a closer look. I knelt into the soil, running my hands through it. The black, moist soil had an overpowering earthy smell of fertility and goodness, unique to anything I had experienced so far in my young farming career.

At the time, I was unable to make sense of what I experienced that day, but I was pleased with the growth of several successful crops on that wonderfully productive piece of non-tilled ground.

Fast Forward

Just a few weeks ago, I found myself in the seat of a small tractor towing a newly developed planting drill, delightfully named the Happy Seeder. I made a few passes with the drill and noticed how elegantly it mulched and placed the crop residues from the prior crop neatly between the new rows while it simultaneously opened a narrow slot to plant a new crop of wheat and place a small amount of fertilizer without turning over the soil. This no-till drill was unlike any I had seen before. The field was located in rural India, within the state of Punjab and the research complex of the Borlaug Institute of South Asia (BISA).

This region in Northwest India is in the midst of a major transition in their food production. Food security in India was achieved within a short and critical window of time, earning Dr. Norman Borlaug international fame as the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize recipient. An iconic example of the “Green Revolution,” this region increased food production as a result of advanced plant breeding of staple food crops such as wheat and rice and aided by the benefits of irrigation, fertilizers, and pesticides.

But after many years of benefits, the situation has now changed. The once productive aquifer supporting the paddy rice and wheat cropping system has dwindled. In an effort to maintain paddy rice production with much less groundwater, the planting dates of the paddy rice, as a matter of public policy, have been shifted to take greater advantage of the monsoon season.

But this new cropping system is having unforeseen consequences. With a compressed window of time to harvest rice and plant their wheat crop, farmers have started burning the rice residues in the field, which allows a single pass of tillage to prepare the field for wheat planting. Tragically, the residue burning practice has caught international attention for the human health hazard it creates.

The Happy Seeder, however, offers an elegant and cost-effective solution to this problem. As documented by a recent Science article, the Happy Seeder allows the farmers to plant their wheat crop in one field pass – without burning the residue or tilling the soil. The Nature Conservancy is now cooperating with several partners to unlock the full deployment of Happy Seeders across the region with the goal of eliminating residue burning.

The Paradigm Shift

My experience of planting with the Happy Seeder in India and the curiosity sparked in me as a young, aspiring Kansas farmer were separated by 25 years and a global paradigm shift around soil health.

I now understand the farmer whom I followed into the field of my youth was on the right track – he simply didn’t have access to the knowledge, techniques, and innovations farmers now enjoy. He appreciated what I did not know at the time – tillage is devastating for soils.

Tillage destroys the biological life and functionality of a delicate living ecosystem in ways we can now comprehend and manage to avoid. While he was ultimately unable to achieve his vision in a profitable manner, what he left behind was healthy soil, full of life and highly productive. My conventional management practices at the time – which depended heavily on regular tillage – went on to extract this productivity.

Tillage is still a common management practice on nearly 90% of global croplands. As tillage continues, the life of the soil is interrupted, depriving it of plant cover and roots, making it more prone to erosion, unable to retain and cycle water and nutrients efficiently. Tillage in croplands is one of the primary drivers of land degradation, but it doesn’t need to be.

Over the past 25 years, a global movement to eliminate tillage in agricultural croplands has taken shape. My experience with the Happy Seeder convinced me we now have the technology to bring productive, zero-tillage cropping systems to farmers worldwide at any size and income level. This technology and the development of other no-till systems are also being deployed in the organic sector, whom we must thank and acknowledge for keeping attention on the priority of soil management.

When zero-tillage systems are paired with the regular planting of cover crops and more diverse crop rotations, soils currently on the slow but steady path toward degradation anywhere in the world can be restored to their prior glory as productive, living ecosystems. The paradigm shift to prioritize soil health is an ecological and human health imperative. Thankfully, our family farm made the switch to zero-tillage during my personal chronology of this movement and we are now utilizing cover crops and more diverse crop rotations. I am now confident any farmer in the world can acquire the knowledge and technology to make the paradigm shift too, reversing the looming land degradation threat one field at a time.

Posted on

The Dirt to Dinner Team: Giving Thanks

Every day, we take for granted that we can just walk into a grocery store and pick out exactly what we want to eat. Do we want chicken, beef, or tofu for dinner? All year, we can drink coconut water, count on fresh strawberries, and be assured of 20 different types of coffee. This is thanks to the entire supply chain: from farmers, farm workers, food processors, truck drivers, food companies, to our local grocery store and its employees who stock the shelves so we can find precisely what is on our shopping list, no matter the time of year.

Lucy is Thankful for the Grocery Store

In the ‘60s, my sisters and I knew exactly where our food came from. There was a very small market called Waytonka in our Minnesota town. It had wooden floors, ceiling fans, the butcher in the back, and penny candy in the front. Aside from the candy, we ate what was local: milk and eggs were delivered to the back door by Meyer Brothers Dairy, ‘Your Lake Minnetonka Neighbor’.

In Minnesota, canned vegetables were a winter staple. As a result, our parents had a large vegetable garden and our job was to plant, grow and harvest. A lot of our childhood was spent on a small family farm while our parents traveled. We would help feed the hogs, milk the cows, and ride horses. If we wanted chicken for dinner, we went to the barn, found a plump one, cut off its head, plucked it and got it ready for the oven.

Today, I am thankful for the grocery store. Though the days of trotting out to the barn are memories that will last a lifetime, I am thankful for human ingenuity that enables me to pick up my hemp hearts to put on my Greek yogurt, buy Norwegian salmon to have for dinner, and yes, boneless skinless chicken breasts that are ready to be grilled, from a store less than 5 miles down the road.

…And Concern for the Earth

I am thankful that people are starting to ask questions about our food and changing the industry for the better. Questions like ‘is the food grown sustainably?” or “are the animals treated with compassion?” and “how transparent is the company or farm to the consumer?” quickly come to mind. I am thankful that we have new technologies like smart sensors, big data, and precision farming that address these issues. Today, with new businesses like Herddogg and iDecisionSciences, and websites like Crowd Cow and McDonalds, people are learning how their food is grown.

Hayley is Thankful for Healthy Foods

I am thankful for the healing power of foods. There is no question that what we choose to eat affects our health, and researchers have provided an abundance of studies proving just that. For instance, studies have shown that foods like blueberries, broccoli, avocado and chia seeds can help reduce inflammation to combat chronic illnesses.

Of particular interest to my family and me is diet related to brain health. My grandmother battled Alzheimer’s and dementia for years, but because she adhered to the MIND diet later in life, we are confident that it brought her more years with us. And for that, we are grateful. The diet has been found to slow and potentially reverse the effects of dementia, and is something I’m already trying to implement into my daily life.

Along the lines of healthful foods, our industry is constantly creating food innovations that provide us with nutrient-rich products. Two products that quickly come to mind are Tagatose, an alternative sweetener with micronutrients, and genetically-modified Golden Rice, which has the potential to save thousands of lives.

One last consideration is plant breeding technologies as a means of healthful foods. With food technologies like GMO, CRISPR, and synthetic biology, we cannot overlook how genetic engineering can increase the healthfulness of our foods.

I am excited about the prospects of genetic engineering to make our food healthier, more nutritious, and sustainable. 

Hillary is Thankful for Choices

Before joining Dirt to Dinner, I thought I knew what “organic” meant and what GMO technology is, especially as a self-proclaimed “foodie”. But over two years later, I can say without hesitance that I knew very little about our food system and that I now choose to not be scared into buying particular products based on misinformation.

No other circumstance brought this into light for me than the birth of my daughter last September. Prior to her arrival, we were a family of three – my husband, our four-year-old son, and me. Adding a fourth into our family excited all of us, but her birth brought much fear as complications arose during delivery, leading to her immediate transfer to a large hospital via ambulance.

In her following weeks of recovery in the neonatal ICU, I was visited by nutritionists, lactation consultants, and other certified pediatric and maternity professionals. I was alarmed at the variance of information when it came to my diet as a nursing mom. My favorite recommendation was “eat non-GMO oatmeal every morning for good milk production”…as if there’s a GMO version of oats???

When I finally focused on what was best for my baby girl and me, my choices became much easier…as they were backed by science.

It’s wonderful to see options of organic and conventional produce at our market, but what matters most to me is that I buy fresh foods that will provide my family with the most nutrients. My go-to is conventional produce, but if the organic raspberries look better, or the store only has Pink Lady apples grown organically, I’m happy to get those. But it’s amazing to have a choice – and to choose healthy. Because of these choices, my one-year-old daughter is happy and thriving. And I’m grateful to always be learning more about our food system.

Garland is Thankful for Perspective

One of the benefits that comes with growing older is a richer sense of perspective on things. Despite all the problems that we deal with every day, and the clatter of so many angry and questioning voices around us from so many directions, the bigger picture starts to come into a lot sharper focus. Now don’t get me wrong…I still see all the challenges and issues that confront our modern food system. I grow annoyed and sometimes angry at the lack of vision and understanding that gets in the way of using science and technology intelligently and responsibly to solve all those problems, and more.

But when I sit with my family and celebrate the incredible bounty that nature makes available to us, all the usual worries and frustration give way to something a good deal more optimistic about the food future. I’m thankful for the people who are working every day to make that system work better.

The men and women pioneering new and better ways of growing crops and animals sustainably and in line with the values that define us all as a society.

The scientists and engineers developing technologies to deliver safer, more wholesome food, and more varieties and with greater abundance for us all. The field workers and merchants and plant workers and food technicians and dietitians and researchers and logistics experts and countless others who make an incredibly complex supply chain work, and work well, on a global scale.

You’ve made food plentiful, available and more affordable than ever before, and that is no small accomplishment. Thanks to you, as I sit at the Thanksgiving table this year, I can celebrate not just the bounty on the table before the four generations of the West family seated around me. I can sleep well this night no doubt having eaten far too much, and talked and laughed and remembered far more than I probably ever have before. I can be thankful because I have faith that our food system will rise to whatever challenge is put before it. That future West generations will have the ability to enjoy what I’m enjoying today.

Now if you could only help me figure out a way to do something about the belly that seems to grow larger every year…

D2D is Thankful for our Dinner Plates

The Dirt to Dinner team is thankful for each and every piece of food on our plates and the journey it took to get there. While we all eat multiple times a day, we rarely stop and think about just how it got there. We take this convenience for granted and expect it without question every time we go food shopping.

But this way of thinking often causes distance from the growers and producers – creating a food disconnect. It is not anyone’s fault by any means; it is simply far too easy to overlook the time, resources and love that goes into growing the food that sustains us. So now we can take the time to be thankful for all the men and women who are a part of our global food system.

From the seeds cultivated over hundreds of years to produce our crops, to the farmers who plant and plan and harvest, to the animals providing our nutrition, for the packers at the processing plants who prepare the food for our purchase, to the drivers who take the food to the store, and the grocery staff who helps to close the supply chain loop for us…we thank you all this Thanksgiving for your hard work and dedication to our health.

Posted on

Our Agricultural Extension Service: From Gardening to Food Safety

Have you ever visited, or even heard of your local agriculture extension program? Extension services provide an amazing array of resources, instruction, and assistance to people everywhere – from those living in the inner city to the most rural locale –to educate about food and farming and to help bridge the distance between dirt and dinner.

The United States’ Cooperative Extension system is a vast network of offices and resources specializing in all things ag, from helping you plan your seasonal veggie garden to providing assistance to large farm producers. These services are available nationwide at the county level and you can find your local office here. What’s remarkable about the system is that it’s backed by local colleges and universities to provide current information and in-depth research for the county’s specific location.

In this post, we take a look at how one state’s extension service works to fulfill the ambitions laid out in legislation dating back more than a full century. We spoke with Dr. Gary Bates, director of the The University of Tennessee’s Beef and Forage Center and professor of plant sciences at the UT Institute of Agriculture in Knoxville.

The program is a huge undertaking

Over 400 agents, working in offices, fields, and homes across Tennessee’s 95 counties, backed by university researchers, scientists and scholars. Education and support to 71,000 families, over 200,000 children and nearly a quarter-million people engaged in farming and food production. Practical help and instruction for more than a half-million state citizens, to the benefit of all 4.3 million Tennesseans.

In this case, the “undertaking” is the University of Tennessee’s Extension Services program – the outreach program of the school’s Institute of Agriculture. Its mission: to improve people’s quality of life and solve problems through the application of research and evidence-based knowledge about agriculture and natural resources, family and consumer sciences, 4-H youth development, and community development.

Behind the somewhat cool institutional language, the real message is far more compelling.

“Our extension services seek to answer real-life questions,” according to Dr. Gary Bates, director of the University’s Beef and Forage Center and associate professor of plant and soil science. It’s learning for the real world, not just a classroom or a course exam or even a dinner-table discussion.

“Our approach is to look at three sectors in what we do,” Dr. Bates explains. “There’s the ag side – the producers. Then there is the average person, the homeowner, and consumer — urban, suburban and rural. Then there is the 4-H.”

Why does the 4-H get such special attention?  “Here in Tennessee, we have one of the larger 4-H groups in the country, roughly 180,000 kids. Sustainability is all about the future, and those kids are our future.”

Through the extension program, young people learn not just basic agronomics or animal husbandry or sustainable farming practices but also a host of other demanding subjects. “A lot of science goes into feeding the world,” Dr. Bates says.

“Just look at what science has done in our lifetime to boost corn yields. We’re feeding a bigger, hungrier world thanks to science. Think about the importance of plant breeding, how we can use drones to be more productive, how to turn precision agriculture and big data into practical improvements in how we farm. We help kids understand all that, and how important and exciting career in agriculture and food can be for them.”

“Farming isn’t Jim-Bob in a pair of overalls today, if it ever really was,” Dr. Bates notes. “If you are interested in science, agriculture is one of the best fields you can go into. What we do helps kids see that.”

Teaching Life Skills

But that is far from the sole focus of the extension service, he adds quickly.

“Our programs help develop those young people, and not just to farm. We want people to know that their food didn’t just spring up magically from the ground, or just appear on a grocery shelf or a restaurant plate from thin air,” Bates says. “But we use agriculture to teach life skills. How to care for animals and plants and other living things. How to be responsible.  How to work with others, and to listen and communicate with people, including public speaking. And a whole lot more.”

That philosophy is nothing new. It’s been part of the extension service program since the passage of the Smith-Lever Act of 1914.  Even then, the Act’s objectives went beyond education for rural Americans in agricultural production to home economics, leadership and other skills contributing to an improved quality of life.

Dr. Bates notes that commercial producers represent only about 2 percent of the state population.

“You would be surprised at how many other kinds of agriculture are out there – home gardens and small part-time operations, local food businesses like restaurants and sidewalk markets, and that kind of thing,” he says. “And beyond that, there’s one really important thing to keep in mind: everybody eats.”

Dr. Bates also emphasizes the importance of extension services to people in making the best use of food, not just producing it.

“We help people learn how to set up and manage a home budget, how to prepare food safely, how to plan out a wholesome, nutritious meals for the whole family, how to manage your time wisely… pretty much anything we can think of that will help people and families live better lives.” 

Through the extension services, local operations offer instruction in small-acreage agricultural production for home gardeners and part-time producers.  They sponsor farmers’ markets and local community gardens. They provide courses in food preparation and nutrition, and even advice on budgeting and managing small business operations.

“It’s a continuous education process,” Dr. Bates explains. “It can’t stand still, or stop thinking about new ways to help people.  We’re constantly evaluating what we do and how effective it is, and how we can do it better. Above all, what we are doing is helping the entire local community to have locally produced food and to use it safely and wisely.”

What Lies Ahead

What are the biggest challenges? What issues are you wrestling with today?

As with every industry, keeping pace with technology presents its issues. “There are new systems, new equipment, new management programs, new everything, it seems some days. We have to stay on top of all that, and be prepared to help people understand it and what it can do for them as producers –and consumers.”

The fast pace can create a new sense of urgency, too, Dr. Bates notes. “People want answers faster. They want help faster. They want results faster. That keeps us on our toes, to say the least. We have to be responsive, and we work really hard to do that.”

He also points to complications arising from the cyber age. “There’s tons of data out there. We want to use the science and research generated by the University to accomplish something in the real world, to make things actually work better or deliver more.”

Then there is social media, he adds. “How do we use it to help consumers learn about food and where to find it and how to prepare it and so on. Our extension agents are clamoring for help in understanding how to make the best use of social media.”

Healthy Ag, Healthy Economy

Why is that ambitious goal of promoting the general welfare of the state population the role of the extension services?

Dr. Bates has a quick answer to the question: “Why shouldn’t it be?”

“We’ve built our programs around the simple idea that if our state economy is going to be healthy, we have to have a healthy agricultural sector…we want everybody in the state to be able to benefit from that.  Not just the men and women who produce agricultural products…we teach people how to get the most from that system, in how they choose the right foods, how they preserve food and avoid waste, how they prepare safe meals for their families, and on and on and on. We teach everyone how important it is to make the system truly sustainable.”

So extension services are about far more than helping farmers make more money?

‘We’re working to make sure our ag sector thrives, and that it is profitable, sure, but also that it is sustainable,” he adds. “When we do that, we give our agricultural system real stability – and make sure it stays a cornerstone of a healthy state economy.  Those aren’t just words we say, either.  We’ve got people in 95 counties working to make sure it’s a lot more than just talk.”

Thoughts from a Bystander

Whether we’re a farmer, manufacturer, or consumer, extension programs, like the University of Tennessee’s, help us produce more of the food people need and want, profitably and sustainably. They help us develop new and better crops and more alternatives for meeting our food needs. They help us feed our families with better, safer, more nutritious foods. And they help us waste less. They help us make the best use of our natural resources, and preserves and protect them for future generations.

Like they say again and again across the extension service network, we’re all in this together.

Posted on

Land Degradation: The History Lesson We Are Still Learning

Michael Doane is a guest columnist for Dirt to Dinner and will be sharing a series of articles on how restoring our lands is the best tool for sustainable food systems.

Michael is the Global Managing Director for Sustainable Food and Water for The Nature Conservancy. Michael started farming at a young age and is a partner in his family’s cattle and row crop farming operation located in Kansas. He combines his passion for agriculture with his love for nature in leading one of The Nature Conservancy’s top global priorities to provide food and water sustainably.

A Step Back in Time

After a recent day of working on our family farm in Kansas, I sat down with my grandmother for a visit. I asked her to recount the days of her youth, coming of age in the same rural setting we still call home. She shared several stories, but one included imagery still so clear for her that it brought a history lesson to life for me. She told me of how her mother would hang wet bedsheets up in one room of the house where the family would huddle to protect themselves from the dust storms severe enough to penetrate the dwelling as well as their lungs.

During Grandma’s childhood, farmers and communities across the U.S. plains discovered that just one generation of soil mismanagement could ruin a landscape and destroy livelihoods.

History Repeats Itself

While the Dust Bowl era is often seen as an anomalous, historical and uniquely American experience, the reality is unfortunately different. Agricultural lands around the world continue to slowly degrade. In fact, by the most credible estimates, up to 52% of global agricultural lands are now moderately to severely degraded, with 12 million hectares (30 million acres) per year degrading to the point they are abandoned by the land manager. To put this in context, the global area of abandoned land considered unworthy of the investments required to keep them productive is roughly equivalent to the total cropland under cultivation by farmers in Iowa.

This destruction of productive land is what pushes agriculture to convert additional native habitats at an alarming rate and the pressures are only increasing as we grapple with the task of ensuring ample food supplies for the next generation.

Perhaps the most important factor in biodiversity conservation worldwide is rooted in addressing the land degradation and abandonment problem.

Soil as a Living Ecosystem

This deterioration of previously healthy soils is often subtle and, while the biology can be complex, the concept is simple: soils are living ecosystems and the way we manage the soils can increase or decrease their health and home. For an official definition and glossary of terms on land degradation, read through this helpful Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) website. In short, the most valuable element of land is the topsoil – the top layer of land that supports the growth of biological life – plants, animals, insects and microbes. Land becomes “degraded” when the functional condition of the topsoil is compromised.

This can happen in different ways. The topsoil can erode, which means it is physically removed from the land by wind or water. Just as importantly, the topsoil can die, which implies it was or is alive. It happens somewhat slowly but, as soils lose their health, plant productivity declines and they are considered degraded. Plant growth and vigor is easily observable and hence it can be a good proxy for soil health. As plant biomass declines, especially when droughts or floods occur, the topsoil can spiral down quickly – losing both its structure and life. This rapid deterioration is what resulted in the Dust Bowl history my grandmother recalls so clearly.

Learning from the Past

But it wasn’t always this way. Prior to this trying time in U.S. history, the landscape across Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Nebraska had formed rich, biodiverse and healthy grasslands in a semi-arid landscape. Nature worked its magic over thousands of years with diverse plants occupying the land, grazed by enormous bison herds with the intermittent presence of naturally occurring fires and droughts. Despite dry conditions, the continuous plant cover of the grasslands created healthy soils that sustained the landscape during droughts. In fact, the soil became so healthy it soaked up the limited rainfall provided, maintained the grassland and still managed to store the rest deep underground in the immense Ogallala aquifer.

As the United States government sought to expand food production with the onset of World War I, they enticed pioneering farmers to convert the grassland to croplands for the first time in their history, tilling them to produce wheat with initially positive results. The crops were productive, booming demand kept wheat prices high through the 1920s and early success incentivized more entrepreneurial farmers to move west and convert yet more prairie into tilled croplands.

But after several very good years, the yields started to decline. Then an epic drought set in. Farmers tilled and planted as they had before; however, the soils slowly lost their health and biological function. In these dying soils, the wheat followed course, leaving the soil fully exposed with no plant cover to protect it. Year after year, dust storms ravaged the soil, lifting and transporting precious topsoil miles away. Over the course of a decade, a vast landscape became severely degraded, threatening to turn the whole region into a desert.

The U.S. government eventually took decisive action, creating a public agency with a mandate to tackle the problem. But this history lesson is still being learned in regions all over the world where many of the same management practices have continued for a nearly a century, creating mini Dust Bowl experiences along the way.

I am now confident the imagery emblazoned in my grandmother’s memory will not sting the cheeks of future generations as we know the solution: agriculture is its own solution.

Planning the Future with Regenerative Ag

The restoration of degraded lands around the world through regenerative agriculture management practices which prioritize the health of the soil is a solution that not only offers more productivity for our global food system, but also generates innumerable environmental benefits. And the time is now. We have the knowledge to make this transition and are seeing a wide range of new innovations under development that will allow us to accelerate and scale it to benefit those on the land – and ultimately consumers – around the globe.

In the coming articles, I will share examples of how farmers, ranchers and foresters are taking their role as land stewards to the next level by prioritizing the health of their soils.

The next time I visit my Grandma, these are the stories I will share with her, too.

Posted on

Superfoods: Super Healthy or Super Hype?

superfoods
Listen to our post from your car, while running…anywhere!

Walking through the grocery aisle, there is an overwhelming number of new superfoods to choose from. Hemp hearts are full of alpha linolenic acid, an anti-inflammatory that can reduce heart disease and cholesterol. You can run for miles fueled only on chia seeds, which are also rich in antioxidants, fiber, iron, and calcium. Acai and goji berries are high in amino acids, antioxidants, and vitamins C, A, B1, B2, and E, all of which damage free radicals, boost your energy and support overall immunity. So I dutifully include all of these to my morning oatmeal and I feel energetic and ready to tackle the day!

But, with all this effort, I still don’t really know what a superfood is…

“Superfood” is not defined

The actual term, “superfood”, is not a term regulated by the FDA. While these foods are thought to be exceptionally dense in nutrition, they do not actually have their own food group. They are called ‘super’ because they contain superior nutritional benefits for the amount of calories they contain. Basically, more bang for your buck, but there is more to the story as it relates to its terminology.

The American Heart Association defines superfoods as “nutritious foods that, when added to an already balanced diet, can bring health benefits.” They reference Beans and Legumes, Berries, Dark Leafy Greens, Nuts and Seeds, Oats, Pumpkin, Salmon, Skinless Poultry, and Yogurt. Sounds a lot like the makings of the Mediterranean or MIND diet to me.

One thing the AHA states right off the bat, even before addressing specific foods, is that superfoods alone will not make you healthier.

Superfoods alone will not make you healthier? I thought that was the point of a Superfoods – they could do it all!

Unfortunately, no. So don’t throw out your groceries and stock the fridge only with hemp hearts, beans, and berries.

While they won’t turn you into a superhero, so-called superfoods are packed with nutrients with protective and combatant properties. What has become evident is that the foods labeled as superfoods are the ones that have ‘more’ nutrition. For instance, 2 tablespoons of hemp hearts have a bit more protein than an egg. Blueberries and blackberries have more antioxidants than pineapples and may help ward off cancer. Salmon has more omega-3 healthy fats and can help prevent heart disease. And, yes, dark leafy greens are healthier than iceberg lettuce. But that’s not all that’s happening here.

“Superfood” as a lucrative marketing term

The term “superfood” is an attractive word, no doubt an eye-catching phrase in your google search.

Ultimately, these super-terminologies really just mean super-sales. Marketing companies have taken note and capitalized on the viral effects of such catchphrases. According to a Nielsen survey, consumers are willing to pay more for foods perceived as healthy, and health claims on labels seem to help. Unsurprisingly, foods that already carry a “healthy” perception and carry certain beneficial claims on labels have shown the greatest sales.

The incentive to market superfoods as such has not been missed by the food industry. They know the term has no concrete meaning, but they know it will boost sales. According to Mintel‘s research, there was a 36% increase in the number of foods and beverages that were marketed with the “superfood”, “super-grain” or “superfruit” label since 2015. The U.S. was the leader in these product launches.

Beneath the comforting concept lies a disappointing reality of industry bias

Dr. Marion Nestle, nutrition and public health professor emerita at New York University, details the gimmick in her new book, “Unsavory Truth”. She uncovers the role of marketing and how highlighting special health benefits makes the products more appealing to customers.

“When marketing imperatives are at work, sellers want research to claim that their products are ‘superfoods,’ a nutritionally meaningless term,” she wrote.

“One of the things I noticed was that there were [studies on] all these foods that are demonstrably healthy. Why would you need to do research to prove that blueberries or raspberries or pomegranates or grapes are healthy? Of course they’re healthy. So the only reason they are doing it is because they’re trying to increase market share.”

– Dr. Marion Nestle

She calls out the fact that the U.S. Department of Health and USDA’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans does not recommend focusing on a singular food or food group for better health, but instead calls for a variety of “healthy eating patterns” of various fruits, vegetables, grains and more. The inverse of how singular “superfoods” are marketed.

What we are suggesting is that the term is useful as a sales driver as well as an identifier of health. We simply would warn that the term can blind consumers to equally nutritious options that are not as hyped-up, thus depriving us of other nutritious choices.

How do we determine truth from hype? 

The answer is in the whole picture! We are all fairly well acquainted with blueberries as a popular superfood. They are high in antioxidants, specifically anthocyanins, that have been reported to inhibit the growth of cancerous human colon cells, and they aid in protecting the body from free-radicals.

But the human body is complex. To truly examine the effect a food has on our body, we must consider not only our diet but our genetics, our lifestyle, our activity level—things that vary greatly from person to person. What might have super-effects on you might have inverse effects on me. Not from the food alone necessarily, but from the combination of our genes and other lifestyle factors such as sleep, stress, and love.

What’s a person to do about this super-vague label?

Each day, eat 5 to 7 servings of vegetables and 3 to 5 servings of fruit – whether they are ‘super’ or not. We need to ensure we have a balanced diet. And that means increasing our range of nutritious foods in our diets, rather than focusing on a handful of foods that claim to be ‘better’.

Carrots, apples, and onions, for example, have not been touted yet as a “superfoods”, however they contain beta-carotene, flavonoids, and fiber that we need. Whole grains found in cereals, bread, rice, and pasta are also high in fiber and fortified with vitamins and minerals, making it easy for many to consume to achieve recommended daily intake.

Posted on

Are GMOs Bad for the Environment?

pesticides

I have a lovely, peaceful vegetable garden in our backyard. Though I spend a lot of time weeding and watering, my very small garden is only for our friends and family to enjoy. If my tomatoes or peppers fail, then my back-up plan is to run to the grocery store or the farmers’ market. The entire vegetable garden experience is for fun, and also a lesson in patience for my children. I don’t depend on the food in my backyard to feed my family of five.

However, for those farmers whom we depend on to feed all 7.9 billion of us, there is no back-up plan when weeds and pests destroy their crop. Weeds strangle plant growth by stealing water, sunlight, and soil nutrients that crops need. Insects defoliate young shoots and leaves faster than you can say “pesticide.”

As a result, farmers must constantly manage the economic and environmental balance between overspending and over-spraying pesticides on crops. Fewer passes through the fields with sprayer equipment means burning less fuel, fewer carbon emissions, and less compaction of the soil. A win-win-win!

So, how does genetic engineering play a role on the farm? These technologies help farmers use less pesticide, less water and less land. Matin Qaim and Wilhelm Klumper at the University of Goettingen, Germany completed a 2014 meta-analysis on the global impacts of GMOs.

  • They discovered that GMOs have made incredible changes to our agricultural performance:
    • Reduced agricultural chemical use by 37%
    • Increased crop yields by 22%
    • Increased farmer profits by 68%

Additionally, a 2017 report, Environmental impacts of genetically modified (GM) crop use 1996-2016, focused on the pesticide and greenhouse gas emission reduction from genetic engineering, primarily with canola, corn, cotton, and soybeans. Using these GM crops reduced the Environmental Impact Quotient by 18.4%. It also cut down on farm equipment fuel usage via fewer pesticide sprays and no-till farming practices. In 2016, this decrease was equivalent to removing 16.7 million cars off the road. To put this in perspective, this is more than all the cars registered in California!

Less Pesticides

In Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, 80% of the food supply is produced by small-holder farmers – farms with 25 acres or less. Plant biotechnology is finally making it possible for them to feed their families and communities, improve profits and dramatically reduce pesticide use.

In India, farmers depend on brinjal, or eggplant, as a significant source of food and income, but it comes with a cost. A small-holder farmer growing brinjal needs 85-120 insecticide sprays during a growing season, harming both the farmer and the environment. Despite all this effort, the eggplant fruit and shoot borer insect can still destroy up to 80% of the crop.

Feed the Future, a global partnership of research and educational institutions, introduced the Bt eggplant by genetically-engineering four different eggplant varieties to produce a protein from an organic pesticide that targets the pests.

According to Tony Shelton, Cornell professor of entomology and director of the Bt Brinjal Project, these new varieties of GMO eggplant now only need about seven sprays a season to control the insects, resulting in pesticide reduction of 92%!

The engineered eggplant is no longer desirable to the pest, thus stopping crop loss. Even more important, the protein does not damage or kill the beneficial insects in the farmer’s field.

In Uganda, 300 small-holder farmers recently grew GMO blight-resistant potatoes for the first time in 2017. Without this technology, they would spend about 15% of their income to spray their crops up to 15 times a season with insecticides, while still losing close to 60% of their crop. Now these potato farmers can increase their income and put less insecticide in the air, soil and their clothing and skin – an environmental triumph.

Nigeria. After almost 10 years of study, Nigeria has approved its first genetically-engineered crop. Black-eyed peas, otherwise known as cowpeas, are an important source of energy, protein and fiber. Nigeria’s small-holder farmers grow about 58% of the world’s supply. Growing cowpea is not easy, as it is susceptible to multiple insects, fungi, bacteria, and viruses, which can cause as much as 90% crop loss. The Institute for Agricultural Research in Zaria, in collaboration with a world-renowned institute in Australia, found that a protein from the soil bacterium can control the pest. This genetically-engineered crop reduced pesticide use and increased yields by about 20%.

Less Pesticides and Healthier Soil

What is often overlooked in the GMO debate is that genetic engineering can create healthier soil and a cleaner watershed next to the farms. How? Let’s go back to my home garden. When I have weeds surrounding my tomatoes, I can just pull them up or hoe them back into the soil. In a small garden, this works perfectly. On acres of land, when farmers till the soil, the water evaporates more quickly, and the soil can blow away.

When a farmer uses Roundup Ready crops, i.e., crops that are tolerant to Roundup herbicide, they can practice no-till farming. No-till farming means farmers do not have to turn over soil to rid it of weeds. This prevents the soil from water evaporation, puts nutrients back into the soil, and keeps the soil dense with organic matter to avoid the soil blowing away. Finally, fewer emissions are released since a tractor doesn’t need to drive back and forth to turn over the soil.

Source: www.GMOAnswers.com

Despite recent controversies regarding Roundup or glyphosate, it has been proven effective to dramatically reduce pesticide applications. Read here for more information on glyphosate safety.

Less Water

Globally, food and agriculture use about 70% of our fresh water supply. While there is the same amount of water today as there was millions of years ago, clean and usable water is not always available to grow crops. According to the FAO, droughts have affected more people worldwide in the last 40 years than any other natural hazard.

Certain GMO seeds can help agriculture use less water and grow more drought-tolerant crops. Scientists believe wheat, corn and soybeans can be genetically modified to require less water. For instance, by altering a plant’s stoma – the microscopic pores in leaves and stems – to save water, these food crops could be extremely resourceful as we attempt to feed our rapidly growing population.

Let’s illustrate this using rice, a vital crop for much of the world, particularly in Asia and Africa. Scientists have taken a gene related to cabbage and mustard and inserted it into rice as a strategy for plant improvement. Why? Inserting this gene allows for drought resistance, salt tolerance and thicker leaf production, which then increases photosynthesis.

For corn, Monsanto has created a DroughtGard variety to help the plant resist drought stress. This allows the corn to maintain some water without needing to draw as much up from the root system. Drought-resistant corn could increase harvests in Africa by an average of 20%.

Just like my own garden, whether it is vegetables or flowers, it is much more cost-effective and less toxic to my watershed when I grow tomatoes or roses without chemicals. Genetic engineering helps large and small holder farmers around the world do just that.

Posted on

The African Swine Fever Epidemic: Are We at Risk?

asf pig

Pigs are dying all across Asia. It is estimated that by the end of 2019, over 200 million pigs will have fallen prey to the African Swine Flu — that’s over 25% of the global pig population. Will the African Swine Flu (ASF) virus hit the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom? Millions of pigs in Asia have died from ASF within the past year – and scientists and animal health experts warn of the need to pay close attention to the pernicious effects of this disease and its potential to spread to even more parts of the global food system.

Contending with disease is nothing new for anyone in animal agriculture. Modern medical and veterinary science has made remarkable progress in understanding many of the major health challenges to beef, pork, poultry and other forms of animal protein. Vaccines and treatment techniques have helped make diseases a difficult – but largely manageable – element of animal husbandry, thus providing the world a remarkably safe supply of wholesome foods.

But the specter of disease isn’t completely gone, as the current attention to a potentially devastating disease has made abundantly clear. Helping put an end to the threat posed by ASF will require a concerted effort by everyone in the pork industry – from producer to processor to marketer – with a bit of understanding and support from the consumer to boot.

What is African Swine Fever?

ASF is an especially vicious disease affecting only pigs and wild boars and is very similar to hog cholera. It’s caused by a virus in the Asfarviridae family and is characterized by a long list of very ugly symptoms and, within a few days, almost always death. The virus spreads very easily from pig to pig through direct contact or through contaminated fluids and food. Ticks, fleas and other pests can also transmit the disease by biting an infected pig and subsequently a new host.

As its name suggests, the disease was first identified in Kenya in 1921 and has been recognized in various parts of Africa for some time. It spread rapidly through Asia as agriculture moved from farmers with a couple backyard pigs to larger-scale hog farms.

As of today, there is no vaccine or cure. The only management tool is the quick identification of infected pigs and immediate isolation and euthanization. Even if a carcass of an infected animal is processed, the virus can survive for months in infected tissue – it’s simply too tough to be easily destroyed.

If there is any good news in this, it’s that the virus doesn’t transmit to other animals or to humans. The virus has no effect on people – or cows, or chickens, or pets, or fish, or any other animal species or component of our global food supply.

While humans may not contract the disease, we can play an inadvertent but critical role in its transmission. Given the long life of the virus, any direct contact with an infected animal – even one not yet displaying symptoms – can make the human a carrier of the virus. The virus may quite literally travel around the world on a human host, especially those visiting farms, if proper hygiene/sanitary and biosecurity protocols aren’t followed.

ASF and the China connection

ASF is most pronounced in Asia, especially China. China produces about half of the world’s pork and constitutes 60% of their consumed animal protein, and imports still more to meet a steady expansion of demand for animal protein by the economically growing nation.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture pegged China’s 2019 pork production at more than 55 million tons. China is expected to import another 2 million tons of pork, the majority from the European Union. And with the highest headcount of almost 450 million pigs, triple the headcount of the next leading country, Chinese consumers clearly like pork.

But since ASF was first reported in China in August 2018, Chinese officials have been circumspect in estimating the total number of pigs dead as a result of the disease. But some reports place the figure as high as 40 million, with media reports of reductions in the sow breeding herd of as much as one third. And regenerating pork productive capacity after such devastating animal losses could take two to three years.

ASF is not just affecting hogs…

The disease also has magnified the stakes involved in the lingering trade dispute between China and the United States, with America soybean and feed grain exports to China rising in parallel with the expansion of the Chinese pork industry.

Pigs are fed mostly soybeans, corn, and micronutrients. Trade patterns undoubtedly will shift as pork-producing nations jockey for the opportunity to meet China’s import needs, and as oilseed and feed grain markets adjust to find a new home for products displaced by lower animal numbers in Asia.

In fact, China’s hog feed consumption is expected to drop by 40% in 2019, according to Rabobank’s ASF report.

The effects of ASF will ripple throughout large parts of the entire global food system for some time.

So how big is the ASF problem?

The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations estimates that as many as 5 million pigs already may have died or have been culled as a result of ASF. Cases of ASF have also been detected in such countries as Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Mongolia, and Laos, representing more than 10 percent of their pig population.

In recent weeks, reports of ASF also have surfaced in Thailand and as far away as South Africa, Russia, and several locations in eastern Europe among wild pig populations. In the United Kingdom, Farming Minister George Eustice prompted a great deal of attention when he urged an even more aggressive approach to prevention and warned that ASF could be expected in the UK “within a year.”

Eustice’s warning comes after authorities in Northern Ireland in June identified meat products contaminated with ASF from the luggage of international travelers. That single report shows the ease with which the disease can rapidly spread to distant parts of the world. It also explains the extraordinary international effort underway to educate people about the risks posed by ASF to agricultural interests everywhere.

“If infected meat got past the authorities and into the pig herd in Northern Ireland, or anywhere else in the UK, it would have devastating implications,” said Alistair Driver, editor of Pig World. Northern Ireland isn’t the only country facing such devastation.

Dirk Pfeiffer, a veterinary epidemiologist at City University of Hong Kong and an ASF expert quoted by the UK’s Guardian, described the epidemic as “probably the most serious animal health disease [the world has] had for a long time, if not ever.”

What is to be done?

Where ASF has been detected, efforts center on containment and eradication. Herds are being culled, and efforts made to reach into the countryside to educate and assure the proper action by smaller pork producers, often located in the countryside. Commercial operations in China and throughout Asia are acting aggressively to identify sick animals and take the necessary steps to stop the spread of ASF. Commercial operators in the United States and other markets also are taking extraordinary steps and investing large amounts of money, time and work to guard against the introduction of ASF into their operations.

International health officials are stepping up biosecurity efforts, centering on import prohibitions from products originating in areas where ASF is known to be present.

USDA has increased the number of health inspectors by 179 at key sea and air entry points, augmented by specially trained beagles focused on sniffing out imported meat products like those detected in Northern Ireland. Efforts to educate people within agriculture on how to identify infected animals also have increased, and advisories issued to reassure consumers of the safety of the nation’s pork supplies. Officials acknowledge the enormity of the challenge but say they have no choice but to act aggressively. There is just too much at stake.

Should U.S. consumers be worried?

Unwarranted fear of U. S. pork – and a reluctance to make pork part of a sensible family diet – can adversely affect the 60,000 pork producers in the United States and the 550,000 jobs that the pork industry helps create. There are 73 million pigs in the United States. While there is ample evidence of the need for everyone to be vigilant in the fight against ASF and the prevention of its entry into the U.S. food system, there’s equally ample evidence that there is nothing to fear in the U.S. food supply.

 

Posted on

The Case for New Breeding Technologies

dna corn gmo

Joan Conrow is a longtime journalist, editor and communications consultant specializing in agriculture and biotechnology. Her clients include the Cornell Alliance for Science. She resides in Santa Fe, NM, with her two rescue dogs.

With the global population expected to top 9 billion by 2050, and climate change impacts likely to reduce crop yields 25-30% in that time, the question increasingly becomes how to keep everyone fed.

That query assumes particular urgency in light of a new global report that calls for revolutionary changes in agriculture and other key areas to ensure that people aren’t pushed further into hunger and poverty, leading to increased conflict and political instability.

The Time is Now

The report by the Global Commission on Adaptation noted that climate change is already worsening food insecurity, and urged governments to promote “climate-smart” interventions to boost agricultural productivity.

Technological innovations, such as gene editing and synthetic biology, offer tools for developing crops that can withstand climate change impacts, such as drought, heat, intense rainfall and plant diseases — if they are allowed to move forward.

“Food production today continues to face old and new threats in ways that are more complex than ever imagined,” said Nassib Mugwanya, an agricultural communications expert from Uganda who is now pursuing a doctorate at North Carolina State University. “The situation gets even worse in developing countries, where much of the food production is reliant on an increasingly changing climate and less productive farming practices. The urgency needed to address these threats requires opening doors to all options that can be of help.”

Bill Gates, the co-chair of both the Global Commission on Adaption and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, expressed similar views in a statement that accompanied the release of the report.

“People everywhere are experiencing the devastating impacts of climate change. Those most impacted are the millions of smallholder farmers and their families in developing countries, who are struggling with poverty and hunger due to low crop yields caused by extreme changes in temperature and rainfall. With greater support for innovation, we can unlock new opportunities and spur change across the global ecosystem.”

– Bill Gates, co-chair of Global Commission on Adaption

Though Gates and the Global Commission outlined specific steps for achieving these revolutionary changes, such as investing in crop research, the call for using new breeding technologies (NBTs) to help agriculture adapt to climate change is not new.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a similar endorsement in its 2016 report: “Biotechnologies, both low- and high-tech, can help small-scale producers, in particular, to be more resilient and to adapt better to climate change.”

More recently, Petra Jorasch of the International Seed Federation published a study that underscored the need for plant breeding innovations to effectively address challenges associated with climate change and a growing population.

Improved plant varieties developed through NBTs have a better capacity to withstand pests and diseases while using fewer resources, her report noted. They also offer stable yields in an unstable climate.

“The new tools of breeding, such as oligonucleotide mutagenesis or CRISPR-Cas9 are more helpful than the previous techniques because these tools allow breeders to do their job in an even more precise and efficient manner,” Jorasch wrote.

 “New breeding technologies have a great potential in tackling major threats to food security in more promising ways than old technologies. Closing doors to these new breeding technologies is like stopping a major required ‘software upgrade’ in food production, which may lead to a ‘freeze’ or serious crash in the system.”

– Nassib Mugwanya, Ugandan agricultural communications expert

A Global Front for NBT Innovations

Innovations in plant breeding can also help agriculture shrink its sizable environmental footprint by making more efficient use of limited resources, such as freshwater, and reducing the need for nitrogen fertilizers, the manufacture of which results in substantial carbon emissions. Equally important, these crops have the potential to deliver good harvests by improving the efficiency of photosynthesis, as an example. Achieving better yields on existing acreage can reduce the pressure to bring wildlands, such as the Amazon rainforest, into production.

The United States, Japan, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, and other countries have streamlined the regulatory process for these new breeding techniques, and China is investing heavily in gene-edited crops in a bid to feed its 1.4 billion citizens.

However, the European Union and some developing nations in Africa and Asia are lagging behind, in part because they either have a regulatory system that is cumbersome or none at all. In an effort to support gene editing, the African Union recently began exploring ways to harmonize the biosafety regulatory framework among its 55 member nations.

Elizabeth Wangeci Njuguna, a plant molecular biologist who is currently pursuing a postdoctoral fellowship at the International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology in Cape Town, South Africa, sees that as a positive step toward embracing NBTs.

“If Africa does not adopt new breeding technologies, I think it will lose a great opportunity to improve its agricultural production system to ensure food security and the general wellbeing of its people,” Njuguna said. “Economically, this will be a poor decision since an enhanced agricultural production system, coupled with vast land and favorable climatic conditions throughout the year, would not only ensure a thriving local food market and employment for Africa’s people but would also give individual countries a competitive edge in the world food export market, making the continent the world’s breadbasket.”

Gene editing also can make a significant contribution to food security, in part by improving the so-called “orphan crops,” like cowpea, pulses, and cassava, that are nutritious staple foods in developing nations, seven international researchers wrote in a recent article in Science. These crops also represent an important source of income for smallholder farmers, thus helping to alleviate poverty, the article noted.

Supporting Innovations for Generations to Come

Albert Caraan, a pioneer member of UP Grains, an organization that offers informational workshops on biotechnology concepts to high school students in far-flung agricultural communities in the Philippines, sees other potential benefits.

“Adoption of NBTs could, in some way, entice the youth to be involved in agricultural research,” he observed. “Gen Z has more affinity for new technologies, thus giving them the chance to get hands-on experience in this field and possibly bringing more young people to agriculture.”

This is important, since many of the world’s farmers are over the age of 60, and young people, including Gen Zers, have been reluctant to pursue the economic uncertainty and hard physical labor that often accompanies farming.

Njuguna also believes that people will welcome NBTs — provided they are accompanied by adequate public education. This includes information about how the science works, safety procedures that are in place and the various benefits that these breeding technologies hope to confer.

“I think that there will be great expectations among the people since this touches on their food and livelihood,” Njuguna said.

“In my opinion, people will expect that the new technology will be a game-changer and solve a good number of challenges that they are currently facing. For instance, farmers will expect most pests and diseases that affect their crops and livestock will be eradicated for good and they can also grow plants that survive drought and salinity. Pastoralists will expect that they don’t have to walk miles to find fodder for their livestock. I also think that most end-product consumers will expect that the technology will result in higher amounts of foodstuffs available throughout the year at affordable prices. For the growing middle class that is more aware and cautious with their food, they will expect that the new breeding technology will result in food produced safely for consumption, with higher nutrient content and more variety at fair prices.”

– Elizabeth Wangeci Njuguna, plant molecular biologist, International Centre for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology, Cape Town

Ultimately, Caraan said, NBTs likely hold the key to preventing the “push into poverty” that the Global Commission on Adaption hopes to avoid.

“I believe that the adoption of new breeding technologies in agriculture will boost global efforts to eliminate poverty and hunger,” Caraan said. “Embracing NBTs will provide a powerful tool in our arsenal to combat the negative effects of climate change by expediting the breeding processes. However, strict and stringent regulations will hamper our chances in achieving global goals, most importantly, no poverty and zero hunger.”

Posted on

Solein: A Space-Age Protein

Wait, what is Solein, you may ask? Well, to put it in its most basic terms, it’s a protein-rich powder made from carbon dioxide-eating bacteria, and with just a touch of space dust. Put it all together, and poof, you have a bland compound that can be mixed with practically anything to give it substantive nutritional value – and with all essential amino acids, to boot! But that’s just the beginning.

A Stellar Feat for Protein

We know most good things come from the land, but the idea for this protein began in space! Based in Finland and founded by CEO, Dr. Pasi Vainikka and his colleagues, Solar Foods got its start in 2017 from VTT, a Finnish research institute.

The original intent of the project was to provide a continuous supply of protein for astronauts en route to Mars in the NASA space program. From there, the founders further refined their process at VTT and the Lappeenranta University of Technology.

Completely disconnected from agriculture, Solar Foods plans to feed the world while also reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

What is Solein?

Solar Foods has a vision to solve the world’s food crisis beyond agricultural limitations. Dr. Vainikka and his team found a way for bacteria to eat CO2 instead of sugar, thus completely changing the dynamic of protein conversion. Another factor that makes Solein wholly unique? This protein source is devoid of any agriculture involvement – no arable land, no irrigation…no problem!

Solein, a complete protein, is created from the combination of a proprietary bacteria, CO2, water, and electricity. The fermentation process is entirely natural and similar to the production of yeast. But instead of sugars, their unique microbes consume CO2 and hydrogen for energy via water electrolysis, a process of splitting water cells using electricity. Other nutrients are added, too, such as potassium, sodium, and phosphorus.

All this occurs in a bioreactor, from which the team must continually remove the liquid that the process creates. Once the liquid dries, what remains is the elusive Solein powder. Currently, Solar Foods produces about one kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, of Solein per day.

Solein Applications

You may be wondering what this airy powder might look like. Well, it looks like wheat flour – quite a nondescript ingredient. But with its nutritional profile of 50% protein, 20-25% carbs, and 5-10% fat, it has a slightly savory taste that’s similar to eggs. Despite this unctuousness, the product is also vegan.

With a versatile texture and profile, you can expect this product to be in almost anything and everything, from shakes to cultured meat in the coming years. Given its malleable consistency, Solein protein powder can be used as an added ingredient in yogurts, breads, drinks, and pasta. Not much different than a protein powder we may use in our shakes, but with fewer ingredients and demanding fewer natural resources.

Solein can also contribute to the dizzying array of alternative meats, making these products even more protein-dense while keeping the mouthfeel intact. It can even be 3D-printed to give it a more textured look and feel. And because Solein has all of the essential amino acids, it can feed cultured meat cells in lab-grown environments.

Sustainability with Solein

Perhaps the most compelling part of Solein is that there’s no limit to the supply. Solein can even be produced anywhere a lab can be sustainably built, including on land where conventional protein production has never been possible – like deserts and the Arctic.

Also compelling? Instead of adding to greenhouse gases, Solein actually consumes carbon dioxide. Moreover, Solein is produced by using renewable electricity such as hydropower. And given its lower energy demand, this process can be adapted for other alternative energy sources, such as solar or wind power.

And there’s no need for arable land or irrigation, either. Dr. Vannika states that Solein is “completely” disconnected from agriculture. The soil microbes used for their proprietary bacteria only require collection from natural land just once. From there, the microbes are grown in a lab, and the inorganic nutrients they use are obtained from mineral deposits that don’t require the use of fertile land.

Production metrics show Solein’s substantial impact, or lack thereof, on natural resources. Solar Foods conducted research at its lab and reported the following findings:

Solein is reported to be at least 100 times more climate-friendly than any animal or plant-based alternative. And unlike conventional protein production, which can use over 2,000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat, Solein only needs just over a gallon of water. 

Furthermore, Solein is 10 times more efficient than soy when measured by protein yield per acre.

Plans for Growth

With a pilot lab already underway, Solar Foods appears to have an aggressive roadmap for their planned global commercial launch in 2021. The first factory producing Solein is scheduled to open at the end of 2021, producing 50 million meals per year, scaling up to two billion meals by the end of 2022.  Their picture on their slide show would be good here.

Solar Foods plans to price Solein powder between $8 and $11 per kilogram, which Dr. Vainikka hopes will compete with current plant- and animal-based proteins. Though this price seems reasonable to us consumers, keep in mind this pricing is for food producers that will integrate Solein into their product line. They will then sell their end product to consumers, so the price by that point will most likely be higher than conventional protein sources, or at least initially.

Can this really work?

But our tastes and purchase patterns have everything to do with the long-term success of a product like this. With all the hype and media attention, it’s easy to see Solein as an answer to many of our global woes. But some consumers may have a hard time eating a lab-grown protein like this, as we don’t like the thought of our food coming from anything other than a farm or garden, no matter how eco-friendly the product.

And some critics find the scalability of this powder unachievable:

“This is a technological marvel, perhaps, but it’s not a food system,”

– Peter Tyedmers, Dalhousie University

At one kilogram per day, Solar Foods’ low production yield concerns food expert Peter Tyedmers, a professor in the School for Resource and Environmental Studies at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia. He doesn’t believe Solar Foods can even begin to dent the production yields of our current agricultural system. And even if yields were impactful, the price for Solein would still be too high to decrease global hunger levels.

But should large-scale production be feasible, a product like Solein would be a feat for humankind. And it will take all kinds of protein sources to feed our growing population: plant, cell-based, air-based and animal proteins alike. Ingenuity, technology, and innovation are the key to our future. The key component will be getting consumers on board with eating alternative protein whether it is made in a lab or grow in a feedlot.

Posted on

How Blockchain is Disrupting the Ag Supply Chain

Consider the lone chicken.

The modern poultry farm is a vast and complex place, a maze of houses, yards and transportation centers that can easily support more than 14,000 animals at a time. All part of an industry that raises more than 50 billion chickens annually.

But, even in such a large space, there are reasons to pay attention to each individual chicken. Maybe we want to keep track of what that bird was fed over the course of its lifetime. Maybe we need to maintain a record of the antibiotics it was given (or not given) and its associated disease history. Maybe we simply want to prove to the end consumer exactly where that chicken came from and how it was raised.

Because the path from farm to plate today is far from a straight line.

The poultry supply chain starts in the coop: when that chicken is hatched it begins its life on the farm. Then, over the course of the next three to five months, it grows into a mature bird, packing on several pounds of new weight and prepares for harvesting.

At that point, its time on the farm is over and it enters the production chain. Depending on what it will eventually be used for – maybe it will be sold as a whole broiler, or maybe it will be broken up into individual parts, or maybe it will be turned into something entirely different – the chicken is sent to a production facility, processed and sent on its way to the retailer. That retailer, also known as your local grocer, is the last step in the chain, finally delivering that chicken to the end consumer.

That’s a very high-level overview, and even at that level, there are a lot of moving pieces in the process that can cause problems.

Maybe that chicken was not raised in an organic manner but ends up on the wrong truck to be sold as an organic broiler.

Maybe it was fed a high-quality, low-grain diet that cost the poultry farmer extra, but that fact didn’t earn them anything extra at the sale because they couldn’t prove it to the wholesaler.

Or maybe that chicken contracted a disease somewhere along the way that went unnoticed, and it ended up being combined with healthy chickens from elsewhere and contaminating them as well.

Whatever the case, the industry has a problem. It needs a way to accurately and securely track and monitor the entire supply chain, and it needs to be scalable to handle the needs of one of the largest logistical operations in the world. After all, agriculture, on the whole, is a massive industry worth $1 trillion and accounting for 5.4% of U.S. GDP in 2017.

The solution is waiting in a somewhat unlikely place.

A new frontier for technology

The last few years might as well be renamed “the age of blockchain.”

What was, until fairly recently, a subject only well known among tech enthusiasts and cryptocurrency buffs burst into the mainstream in the fall of 2017, during Bitcoin’s epic run-up to $19,000 and beyond.

Seemingly overnight, everyone suddenly had an opinion on cryptocurrencies and the obscure technology underpinning them. Because that’s how blockchain technology got its start in 2009: as the fundamental technology on which the cryptocurrency market is built. Blockchain is defined as: “a digital database containing information (such as records of financial transactions) that can be simultaneously used and shared within a large decentralized, publicly accessible network.”

Essentially, it’s a way to digitally prove who you are and what you have that’s permanent and cannot be altered or forged. The information is recorded on a public ledger to ensure transparency.

When applied to cryptocurrencies, this functionality is very straightforward. Blockchain is a way for me to prove to you that I have the coins I say I do and, when I send them to you, is a verifiable way for you to prove that value has been transferred to you.

But blockchain has other applications across industries that are just starting to come to the surface.

For example, banks are using the technology to better facilitate cross-border financial transfers and speed up digital transactions. Western Union, for instance, has been using blockchain to power its money transfers for more than a year.

IBM is using it to create iron-clad “digital identities” and prevent identify theft.

And governments are even using it to improve public services and crackdown on crime.

But it’s in agriculture that the true power of blockchain technology might fully come to life, enabling all of the tracking and security measures that the industry has been working on for years while simultaneously stepping up to meet today’s consumer demands.

Adapting to a more engaged consumer

“The industry has been moving toward traceability for years, with the advent of natural and organic and so on and so forth,” explains Steve Sands, VP of Protein at Performance Food Group (PFG), one of the largest food distributors in the U.S. “But most of those systems were affidavit based, so they were only as good as the guy who signed the piece of paper saying, ‘I raised my animal this way.’”

That worked for a while, but in the face of new customer expectations and tastes, it just wasn’t enough.

“For us as a food distributor, we want to make sure that the brands that we own are infallible in those claims,” Sands says, “and that led us to introduce an extra layer of infallibility, or auditability, to ensure that we weren’t making claims that we couldn’t back up. In a $20-billion company like PFG, you better be doing what you say you’re doing.”

– Steve Sands, VP of Protein at Performance Food Group

Over the years, PFG has developed a number of processes to help make this a reality, establishing verifiable standards for the farmers it worked with, auditing the records, tracking the DNA of the animals it was purchasing and more. Blockchain is a natural evolution of these efforts.

“I think [blockchain] has different applications for different food products,” he explains, “so it might be better suited to things like produce that travel through the supply chain largely intact but may go through many different hands before ending up at a restaurant.”

That’s opposed to something like a 550-pound animal carcass that will be cut up into hundreds of different products and then combined with hundreds of other products before being shipped out. In those cases, DNA might be a better tool, but blockchain still addresses a need.

“Where blockchain would come in handy is on the live side, because that live animal may trade several times before it gets to the point of slaughter,” Sands says. “Typically, a cow-calf operation is going to try to sell that animal once it’s weaned, and off to a rancher who will put it on grass and let it grow for a year before selling it off to a feedlot. Every time that animal changes hands, blockchain would be very useful because it would be a way to maintain that chain of custody without having to go to the expense of DNA at every step, which you really can’t do.”

And PFG is far from alone in this.

IBM has teamed up with companies including Dole, Driscoll’s, Kroger, Nestle, Tyson, and Unilever on the so-called IBM Food Trust, which is leveraging IBM’s computing platform to improve data traceability and speed up results for all involved. According to reports, the time it takes to trace an individual item from a grocer’s shelf to the field where it was produced has been trimmed from seven days to as little as 2.2 seconds, enabling companies to quickly identify and isolate contaminated supply chains and issue recalls in real-time.

Starbucks is working on a new “bean to cup” program that’s built on the blockchain to promote ethical sourcing in the coffee industry.

French retail chain Carrefour in 2018 launched what it called Europe’s first food blockchain in order to track the one million-plus free-range chickens it sells in its stores every year, with plans to extend the technology to 8 more animal and vegetable product lines in the coming year.

And last Thanksgiving, Cargill expanded its popular “blockchain for turkeys” program to 30 states, offering consumers direct access to information about 200,000 turkeys from 70 farms under its Honeysuckle White brand.

What’s next?

If that is any indication, the potential applications of blockchain technology are broad and the industry is just beginning to scratch the surface. From traceability to verification, to sourcing, quality and more, blockchain stands to revolutionize not only the agriculture supply chain, but what consumers can expect from it going forward.

But questions remain, according to Christophe Uzureau, a blockchain and token analyst with Gartner and the co-author, along with Gartner colleague David Furlonger, of the book “The Real Business of Blockchain: How Leaders Can Create Value in a New Digital Age,” which discusses the pitfalls and possibilities of the technology for businesses.

“Today we’re at the stage of adoption where we’re reaching critical mass,” he says, “so now we need to complete the blockchain in order for it to reach its full potential. We’re moving in that direction, but we’re still only likely to see maturity post-2020, or more likely 2023.”

– Christophe Uzureau, Gartner analyst

In Uzureau’s view, there are five elements that need to be in place before blockchain can truly revolutionize the ag supply chain: trust, distribution, encryption, tokenization, and specialization, all of which the industry has up and running in at least their early stages. The next step, then, is what he calls the “enhanced blockchain,” which is when the technology gets fully integrated with existing ag system, including Internet of Thing (IoT) sensors, artificial intelligence and more.

“That’s the fundamental next step,” he says, “and it’s clearly a challenge, but the potential for what it could mean for the supply chain could be very big. Farmers today have many different sensors and capture lots of data. By bringing all of that information today and using it to make better decisions about the supply chain, even the smallest players in the market could contribute directly to the whole system. It would revolutionize what the supply chain can do.”

Now imagine reconnecting with that lone chicken in your grocery store. On its packaging label, you see a QR code. With your phone, you scan the code and immediately see the chicken’s farm, feed and medical information – the power of blockchain demonstrated for consumers and processors alike.

Posted on

Comparing Traditional & Alternative Burgers

Plant-based burgers have taken the media and our menus by storm. Fast-food establishments like Carl’s Jr., Burger King, White Castle, Red Robin and TGI Friday’s have all added the alternative burgers to their protein offerings – and even more restaurants are following suit. We even saw the Beyond Burger in the wilds of the Pennsylvania countryside this summer.

Comparison of popular meat and meat alternatives

They may look, taste and even ‘bleed’ like real meat, but how do the nutritional profiles of these plant-based alternative burgers compare to more traditional options? Let’s take a look!

Sources: ImpossibleFoods.com, BeyondMeat.com, Kelloggs.com, Instacart.com, BK.com, Walmart.com

Key nutritional differences

From the chart above, you can easily identify some similarities, but also some obvious differences. The most glaring difference? The number of ingredients. Traditional meat products typically have one ingredient: meat. These meat-like products, however, are more complicated! Comprised of a variety of ingredients, Beyond Burger has 18, while Impossible burger has 21.

These meatless alternatives have a similar amount of protein as traditional burgers, but how? The Beyond Burger lists pea isolate, a plant-derived protein, as its second ingredient after water. Alternatively, Impossible Burger credits soy and potato isolates for their main sources of protein.

While the primary protein source is not made from whole foods, they do contain a healthy amount of nutrients such as iron, calcium and in the case of Impossible burger, high amounts of B12, an important ingredient for those not eating meat.

Veggie burgers sold from consumer product companies, like MorningStar Farms and Kraft Heinz, are also non-whole-food based, deriving their protein from soy. These products lack the complex nutrient profile that the plant-based alternatives contain.

So, what is a whole-food-based option? A good example of a whole-food-based burger is Kellogg’s Gardenburger, which contains rolled oats, mushrooms, and brown rice as its first three ingredients. While the protein makeup is only 8.5 grams per 4 ounce burger, this alternative is a great source of fiber at 12% DV, and contains moderate levels of Vitamin A, C, calcium, and iron.

How are these meatish products made?

It is pretty obvious how a cow becomes a hamburger, but Beyond and Impossible consider the production of their products as proprietary information. With the Impossible Burger, however, we know it is made with genetically-modified heme. In order to make their ‘meat’ look ‘blood-red’, they use an iron-containing molecule found in the root nodules of soy. They then take the DNA for soy leghemoglobin, insert it into yeast, and ferment the yeast.

Impossible Foods also proudly embraces GMO soy to ‘solve critical environmental, health, safety, and food security problems’ and have long advocated for responsible use of this technology in the food system.

So should I be eating Beyond and Impossible burgers or traditional beef?

The answer depends on your dietary needs. While the Impossible and Beyond burgers are not necessarily unhealthy, they are not the healthier choice over traditional beef or veggie burgers either. It has been reported that we Americans tend to eat too much red meat, so making room for more vegetables in our diets can only improve our health. So how can I get more veggies?

Well, a common misconception is that these new plant-based options are like the V-8 of burgers. The fact is that eating less red meat and more vegetables does not mean substituting traditional meats for these meatless options. You are not eating whole vegetables when you eat a Beyond or Impossible burger; to achieve that, you would need whole vegetables or burgers made from them.

Here are some great burger recipes we love – all with good amounts of protein, whole vegetables and a nice amount of fiber: Homemade Black Bean Veggie Burger, Sweet Potato Burger, and High Fiber Veggie Burger.

Alternative meat burgers are just another choice in the grocery store. Everyone has different preferences and dietary guidelines. While we are optimistic about the emerging environmentally-friendly food technologies, the biggest challenge still left to face is the nutrition of these products. These are exciting options for those who don’t eat meat. And in the future, it will be great to see protein sources with more whole-food-based options and less sodium.

Posted on

Back to Business: D2D News Recap

Glyphosate Wars Continue to Rage

The battle over the potential health risks of glyphosate – the key ingredient of the popular weed killer, Roundup – saw new developments that seemed helpful to both sides in the debate. The number of U.S. civil lawsuits against Roundup’s parent company (Monsanto, later acquired by Bayer AG) has grown to 18,400 – a number prompting courts in California to consolidate various actions into class-action suits and multi-court district litigation. Initial jury awards in the hundreds of millions of dollars have been lowered afterward by judges reviewing the cases. But Bayer reportedly has offered to pay as much as $8 billion to settle the outstanding claims. The company also welcomed the Environmental Protection Agency’s following announcement:

“It is irresponsible to require labels on products that are inaccurate when the EPA knows the product does not pose a cancer risk,” said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “It is critical that federal regulatory agencies like EPA relay to consumers accurate, scientific-based information about risks that pesticides may pose to them.”

However, California officials said they will maintain their labeling requirement.

FAO Food Security Report Offers Grim News

The Food and Agriculture Organization at the United Nations released its annual assessment of global food security, highlighted by the grim news that the number of people facing food insecurity rose again for the third straight year. For more than a decade, the number had been declining amid a collective effort to deal with the problem by member nations. But the 2019 FAO report estimates the number of people without enough nutrition rose to 822 million – over 10% of the planet.

Poor economic conditions attracted much of the blame, but continuing episodes of natural disaster and disruption to local food production, political instability, outright conflict, and displaced populations also drew attention. In contrast, the report also noted the still-significant role played by obesity in contributing to global malnutrition.

Further Evidence of Weather Woes

The lingering effects of wet weather in key U.S. agricultural areas resulted in almost 20 million acres of cropland going unplanted this spring, according to reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). That’s the largest “prevented planting” area since the USDA began collecting such data back in 2007. Despite this, other USDA crop production estimates point to robust crops this year for most major commodities. Soybean farmers, beset by the ongoing trade dispute between the United States and China, are expected to cut production by a whopping 19% as they shift to planting more of other crops, notably corn. USDA continues to predict modest overall food price increases for the year.

FDA Cautions Against Certain Pet Foods

As Dirt to Dinner previously reported, growing concerns with the adverse health effects of certain pet foods have attracted the attention of the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has now issued a consumer advisory on the issue, naming several specific dry dog food products and launching a recall of products found to have toxic levels of vitamin D. To see the complete list of products covered by the alert, please visit this site.

Like We Also Said….

Following our recent post on the emergence of aquatic dead zones in the U.S. Gulf and other locations, the Trump Administration has spoken out about plans to use $100 million already authorized by Congress to fight “red tide” – the toxic algae bloom blamed for damage to fishing, recreational activities, and aquatic wildlife, notably in many Florida waters. Local authorities and water-related interests welcomed the attention called to the issue, despite the political overtones of the discussion. Red tide has played havoc with commercial and recreational fishing in some areas and made swimming in contaminated areas a very risky proposition.

Brexit Prompts Another Salvo in Debate over Genetic Engineering

British and European officials continue to trade barbs as the Oct. 31 deadline approaches for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. New UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson added to the fun by distancing his government from last summer’s gene-editing ruling by the European Court of Justice imposing stringent regulatory requirements. Many believe this “CRISPR” approach to genetics holds the key to the rapid development of better plant varieties that will increase food production and enhance food security.

Johnson recently promised “…to liberate the UK’s extraordinary bio-science sector from anti-genetic modification rules and…develop the blight-resistant crops that will feed the world.”

UN Climate Report Urges Attention to Ag Production

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has jumped on the growing effort to curtail the role of modern eating habits and the global agricultural production system in contributing to what it warned could be “climate change-induced environmental catastrophe.”

In a report issued this summer, the panel of international scientists observed that “Earth’s climate is entering a qualitatively different stage.” Adding insult to injury, the IPCC claims that current ag practices misuse resources and actually make global warming worse, creating a “vicious cycle” that makes food more expensive, scarcer and less nutritious. So far leaders of major farm and food organizations have avoided substantive public comment on the report.

So what solutions does the report offer? One big idea: consuming less meat (especially red meats) and more plant-based foods. Other suggestions include more environmentally-friendly tillage techniques and more targeted use of fertilizers, coupled with serious efforts to reduce food waste. Such efforts would cut greenhouse gas emissions and make better use of precious natural resources, the experts concluded.

A Tax on Traditional Meats?

The broad subject of meat alternatives – both plant-based and cultured cell products – doesn’t seem to be losing any steam across the news media. Stories abound of efforts by fast-food chains and independent restaurants to add meat alternatives to their menus, including novel new offerings such as an “Impossible Burger” and a “Beyond Meatball Marinara.” Who would have thought these products would push us toward meat taxation?

A sign of the economic steam behind this emerging food product category might be in comments from government officials about the need to add taxes to the competitive mix. A study lead by Dr. Marco Springmann of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Future of Food estimated there will be 2.4 million deaths due to red and processed meat consumption by 2020.

Governments with socialized medicine might also be licking their chops to recoup the estimated $285 billion in health care costs. German politicians have suggested an increase in taxes on traditional meats, from today’s 7% to upwards of 19%, with Sweden, The Netherlands and Denmark considering similar taxation practices.

And to Wash It Down…

The Natural Hemp Company has announced launch of a CBD-infused sparkling water for people with an active lifestyle, creatively positioned as “the Gatorade of CBD beverages.” The product is called Day One CBD Sparkling Water and claims to have no sugars, calories or carbohydrates. The company didn’t elaborate on what constitutes an appropriate “active lifestyle.”

Posted on

Packing Social Concerns in the Lunchbox

Dirt to Dinner is excited to feature Dr. Sarah Evanega’s post on our site. Dr. Evanega earned her PhD in plant biology and science communications from Cornell University, where she now directs the Alliance for Science and serves as Senior Associate Director of International Programs in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences. She resides in Ithaca with her husband and three young children.

The Cornell Alliance for Science works to ensure global access to life-improving agricultural innovations that can shrink farming’s footprint, deliver food security, reduce the drudgery of field work that often falls on women and children, provide rural families with sufficient income to educate their children, and inspire young people to pursue a career in agriculture and science.

As a child, I highly anticipated the return to school, the thrilling day when my siblings and I headed over to campus to pay our fee and look on the bulletin board to see which teacher we were assigned to and which of our friends would join us in class. The hallways had a distinct smell that we barely noticed during the school year and nearly forgot over the summer break, which meant the odor of paper and gymnasium hit us hard as we walked in the front door after months away. Back to school meant buying supplies, the hope of getting a Trapper Keeper with a cool design, and maybe even a new pair of jeans or shoes.

Today, as a mom of three young kids, back to school means shifting from the laid-back rhythm of summer to a tightly tuned schedule of early-to-bed, early-to-rise, the regularity of dinner, bath and bedtime books, and early mornings. After the coffee is on, I pull out three lunch boxes and face the challenge of packing lunches that will both appeal to my kids and my sense of what’s healthy and socially just.

As I pull together sandwich fixings, carrot sticks and fruit, I’m aware that our well-stocked refrigerator and cupboards are a luxury that many families throughout the world do not share: that my choice of what to pack, and what to leave out, is not available to the millions who struggle with the hunger and poverty that accompanies failed crops. I know my children won’t have to skip school to hand-weed the family’s fields or miss class entirely because a miserable harvest left no extra money to pay tuition.

As a plant scientist who works in international programs at Cornell University, I’m fully aware that fussing over the ever-growing list of food items restricted in schools is very much a “first-world” problem, as are the half-eaten apples and the sandwich crusts my kids bring back home at the end of the day. Hunger, the frequent companion of far too many children in developing nations, always trumps the pickiness that leads to food waste.

I know that many other American parents share my concern about hungry children, others and our own, and that they want to see a world that’s just. But because of my job, I know something they may not—that technology exists to solve some of the problems that face us all…

I’m talking about using genetic engineering to improve crops, boost the livelihoods of smallholder farm families, enhance nutrition, reduce climate change impacts, even remove the pesky protein that makes the classic PB&J sandwich an unwelcome allergenic addition to lunch boxes across the country.

Yes, the same technology that can reduce the use of pesticides in crops can also render peanuts hypoallergenic. The same technology that can eliminate the need for nitrogen fertilizers that generate greenhouse gases can keep cut apples from browning. The same technology that can add essential nutrients like vitamin A to staple foods like bananas and rice can silence the gluten proteins that make life miserable for those with celiac disease.

Sadly, this technology has been pushed to the sidelines, dismissed as a dirty three-letter word: GMO. Never has a plant breeding technique been so reviled, so falsely accused of everything from solidifying corporate control over the food supply to making people sick. The demonization of this technology funds numerous NGOs and has even become a cottage industry of sorts. American supermarkets are filled with products that bear the badge of misinformation—the trademark butterfly of the “non-GMO verified” label. This marketing ploy tricks consumers into believing GMOs are somehow bad, and so they should pay more for products without them — even products like salt and water, for which there is no GM equivalent. Sorry—those tricks don’t work on scientist moms like me. And they shouldn’t work on you.

As Americans, our ideologies and shopping habits reverberate around the world. And when we say no to GMO, we’re simultaneously depriving smallholder farmers and consumers in developing nations from exercising choice about what to grow, what to eat. Or in too many cases, about whether they will eat.

Would you say no to GMO if you knew it could save orange trees from the devastation of citrus greening disease, bananas from the scourge of wilt, crops from succumbing to drought or cattle to heat? Would you push it away if you knew this technology could help keep cacao, the primary ingredient in chocolate, from going extinct?  Would you get on board if you knew it meant that kids could safely munch a bag of peanuts without risking anaphylactic shock, be spared the blindness of vitamin A deficiency? Would you have a change of heart if you knew that biotechnology could increase the income of a smallholder farmer in Bangladesh six-fold — enough to send his children to school, buy a propane stove so his wife didn’t have to prepare food over a cow dung or charcoal fire?

Or to bring it back home, would you embrace this technology if you knew it meant the daily challenge of packing a school lunch could be immensely simplified with hypoallergenic peanut butter spread on gluten-free wheat bread and accompanied by an apple that retained its fresh, white flesh, even hours after slicing?

Some of these products, like the Arctic Apple, are already available. Others are moving forward and many more are in the works, ready and able to do their part to end hunger, shrink agriculture’s outsized environmental footprint, increase crop yields, reduce pesticide use, withstand the temperamental and often extreme growing conditions that characterize climate change, and curb food waste. Even more products are likely now that the science has advanced through the precise, predictable use of gene editing tools like CRISPR.

But these new plant varieties, created by scientists working in public institutions like me, won’t advance without our support, our recognition that they have a role, just like organics and conventional and natural, in keeping our planet healthy and our kids fed. They aren’t backed by the multinational corporations that can pay $100 million to move a genetically-engineered crop through an unreasonably onerous regulatory process. They need consumers, people like you and me, to say that we want scientific evidence, not ideology, to determine what enters the food supply.

These are the thoughts that enter my mind as I sip coffee, pack lunches, prepare my children for another day in the school environment that I loved. I want them to have the same opportunities that I enjoyed, and I want those opportunities extended to kids across the globe. And from where I sit, access to the healthy, affordable food that genetic engineering can provide is a huge part of that.

As we bid farewell to the unstructured days of summer and re-enter the school year routine, let’s remember that the decisions we make each day in the grocery store reverberate not only in our children’s lunch boxes, but all around the world.  

Posted on

What Really Drives the Price of Our Food?

Commodity markets wrestle with that question every day. And the job isn’t getting any easier.

Crop production reports. Weather. Stock levels. Economic outlook and currency trends. Producer confidence. Politics. Disease. Shifting trade flows. International conflict. And all of them are important on both a local and global scale. This highlights just how many things go into establishing the prices received by farmers and ultimately paid by consumers everywhere. Dirt-to-Dinner takes a look at just some of the things that go into determining the price of our food – and why consumers might want to pay attention.

Pity the poor commodities trader watching the Chicago markets last week.

Many traders expected the USDA to forecast a low corn crop harvest due to all the flooding in the Midwest. But instead, it forecast a relatively strong yield at 169 bushels per acre. As a result, futures prices for almost every major commodity plummeted. Analysts issued dire warnings of possible further price declines in the days and weeks remaining in the growing season.

This turbulent environment is a case study in just how complex the mix of factors shaping commodity prices – and ultimately the prices paid by consumers for food – can be. It also illustrates why these considerations are so important to the global food system – from the farmers trying to make a living off of these price fluctuations to the consumers who depend upon it for a steady supply of wholesome, affordable food.

Just another day in the dynamic world of buying and selling the world’s wheat, corn, and soybeans? Well, sort of, but the turbulent environment from early August is a case study in just how complex the mix of factors that go into the price of food in your grocery cart. 

Traders start their market assessment with some simple supply and demand: high supply equals low prices and low supply equals high prices. Take the number of acres planted to a particular crop and multiply it by the yield per acre – the result is the total amount of that crop for that year. It’s the bedrock on which traders evaluate the likely available supply.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) issues regular crop production estimates based on information gathered from across the country. Traders and analysts watched the August crop report very closely, looking for signs of just how much the unprecedented weather conditions in the spring affected the crop supply.

To much surprise, the August report painted a picture of another year of robust production – down a bit from last year’s exceptional crops, but still an ample supply of the building blocks of the modern food system – corn, soybeans, and wheat. The market’s response: a sharp downturn in commodity prices.

Why did the market respond the way it did?

Accurate predictions of final crop size are simply tough to make. For this year, in particular, there was the inclement weather. This spring’s heavy rains and flooding across many important agricultural areas meant that farmers couldn’t get into the fields to plant when they normally would do so. In some locales, dry conditions hindered crop development. Poor conditions also mean lower yields per acre. Unlike last year, when generally favorable conditions led to a more uniformly strong production pattern, this year seems to show a picture of spotty production – some areas very robust, others less so.

Nonetheless, USDA forecast overall wheat production to be holding steady from last year. The corn crop is projected to be down about 4% from last year (13.9 billion bushels), based on about the same acreage but lower per-acre yields. Soybean production, however, is seen as declining by almost 20%, to 3.7 billion bushels.

To further complicate the situation, this year’s production will add to the existing stocks of commodities. Stocks are those crops held over from the previous year – crops ‘in the bank’ so to speak.

For example, soybean stocks already stand at 1.8 billion bushels – up by almost half again the previous record high. By the end of the marketing year, some analysts predict the stocks overhanging the market will still total a record 1 billion bushels.

Did the USDA’s numbers alone justify the drop in prices? To better answer that question, traders had to turn to the demand side of the price equation.

A grim trade picture

Soybean markets highlight the importance of trade to the prices paid to farmers and the prices paid by consumers – and provide a case study of how so many diverse factors play into price. Soybeans provide the high protein meal and oil critical to growing herds of animals around the world – nowhere more so than China, and its increasingly large, commercial-style pork production industry.

U.S. soybean production is down and stocks have surged because exports have declined, largely in response to the continuing trade dispute between the United States and China. All in all, U.S. soybean exports this year are down almost a quarter from last year’s levels to about 35.6 million tons.

China is the largest importer of soybeans in the world, and the United States traditionally is the largest exporter of the crop. At its peak, the China market represented 60% of all U.S. soybean exports. But exports of U.S. soybeans and soybean products to China are down by half – and for now, likely to stay at that level, given that China announced they have suspended purchases of all U.S. agricultural products.

China still needs soybeans to feed its expanding demand for animal protein, so they turned to the other major supplier in world markets – Brazil. A surge in demand adds incentive to expand production, and Brazil has faced increasing concern from the environmental community for its renewed efforts to clear more land for crop production. In fact, President Bolsonaro has encouraged deforestation – an unintended consequence of soybean tariffs from the U.S. and China. At the same time, the shift in global trade flows means a shift in transportation and logistical costs, complicating the pricing process still more.

To muddy the waters still more, Chinese pork production has taken a significant hit due to the emergence of African swine fever. The African swine fever has thus far reduced their pork production by about 21%  thus reducing the need for as many soybeans.

However, the need to manage imports carefully as an element of their trade strategy, this development has further clouded the outlook not only for Chinese demand for soybeans but for other basic crops and farm products, as well.

On an even higher level, the pricing process must consider macro-economic conditions and currency rates. The Chinese, for example, lowered the value of the yuan to its lowest level in more than a decade. This makes Chinese goods less expensive for foreign buyers, thus helping offset newly imposed import tariffs.

Meanwhile, back on the farm…

All this uncertainty has another important effect – on the farmer. Farm income has seen a steady decline in the past five years, with more and more people across agriculture warning of a real income crisis on our doorstep. USDA’s Market Facilitation program authorized $14.5 billion this year in direct payments for grain, oilseed and other farmers adversely affected by the trade dispute. This is on top of $12 billion authorized for assistance last year, of which about $8.5 billion was actually paid out, largely to soybean producers.

More and more farmers are willing to openly question what the future holds for them. It creates an additional layer of uncertainty that must be factored into the price decisions traders are forced to make every day. “What will farmers plant?” is no longer the primary question. Increasingly, more and more people across the agricultural sector ask, “Will they plant at all?”

Why should consumers care?

The average consumer never has to contemplate the dizzying array of factors that go into finding the price for the basic commodities on which our food system is built. After all, we all enjoy an incredible selection of food products, at a fraction of the cost when compared to the rest of the world.

USDA forecasts food price increases of 1-2% in 2019, driven largely by higher costs for dairy products, vegetables, and fresh fruit. Current grain and oilseed prices are expected to help hold the line on prices paid for poultry, beef and veal (rising an estimated 1-2%) while pork prices may actually decline a bit as soybeans and soybean products previously going into export channels overhang the market.

The Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (and the National Farmers Union) estimate that the farmer’s share of the food dollar continues to decline. In 2019, the farmer’s share is just 14.6 cents, down 17% from 2011 and at the lowest level since such analysis began.

All that is the good news.

But the more important consideration may be the long-term implications – the effect of uncertainty and potential price volatility that can be created by factors far more complex than crop size. Take a look at the 2008 global economic crisis as an example. We saw commodity prices rise when supply and demand tightened. Food prices spiked that year by 6.4%, followed by another increase in 2011-12 of more than 5%, following drought and various environmental problems in key production areas. We’re always one weather calamity, or one political dispute, or one economic crisis from a completely changed price picture.

Posted on

Can I Get Sick from Animals Fed GMOs?

steak

Many believe that consuming animals fed GMOs will adversely affect our health. For instance, we may think our DNA changes or immune systems weaken when we eat dairy or meat from animals eating GMO feed. These misconceptions create conclusions like “GMO feed must be harmful to both humans and animals alike.” But fear not because, as science shows us, these conclusions are not possible.

Scare Tactics Manipulate Consumers

Some organizations and major consumer product companies are spearheading fear-based marketing tactics that cause concern about GMO-fed meat, poultry, and dairy we put into our grocery carts.

  • A coalition called Green America asks companies like Chobani to stop using GMO feed for their dairy cows, as it is not ‘real’ and ‘natural’. “Tell Chobani to shift to non-GMO feed for their cows, to help accelerate the shift to a non-GMO food system! We and the cows thank you.”

  • Given their stance on genetic engineering, it is no surprise that Ben & Jerry’s ice cream doesn’t contain milk from cows fed with GMOs.

  • The Institute of Responsible Technology, an anti-GMO blog, posted about a woman who fell down on the floor, terribly sick immediately after eating pork that was fed genetically-modified corn.

Messages like these only gives room for more confusion. We have written about how GMOs are proven safe for humans; however consumer concerns span beyond just choosing to eat GMO or non-GMO foods.

Animal Research into GMO Feed

There is a tremendous amount of animal research that looks specifically at animals fed genetically modified foods, like corn or soybeans. Conclusions illustrate that it is not possible to find any of the genetically modified proteins in the animals’ meat. The beef, pork, poultry, or dairy is not statistically different between animals fed GMO feed and those who have not. Furthermore, the animals and poultry reproduce and mature in exactly the same manner, regardless of whether there are GMO crops in their feed or not.

Dr. Alison Van Eenennaam of the University of California, Davis published the results of her study on animal health in the Journal of Animal Science, August 2017. Dr. Van Eenennaam led a study that examined 29 years of livestock productivity and health before and after the introduction of genetically modified crops. This was a study that looked at trillions of pounds of GM feed and over 100 billion animals. This was no easy feat! Her team concluded the following:

“DNA from GE crops is chemically equivalent to DNA from non-GE crops and both are broken down the same way during digestion.…. there is no evidence suggesting DNA or rDNA transfer from plants to animals.”

When looking at the actual meat, milk and eggs from animals and poultry fed genetically modified feed the study found that…

“Neither recombinant DNA (rDNA) nor protein from GE feed crops are reliably detected in the milk, meat and eggs from livestock that have been fed GE feed.”

Another study from University of Nottingham and AgroParisTech also proved that the meat from animals fed non-GMO grain vs. animals fed GMO grain is genetically identical. Researchers performed substantial equivalent experiments on the effect of diets on GM corn, potato, soybeans, rice, or wheat on animal health.

These tests look at all the metabolites, like amino acids and lactic acids, that are produced by a GMO-fed animal and compared it to its non-GMO fed counterpart. What scientists have found is that GMO- and non-GMO-fed meat are identical. They determined that the GMO corn is “substantially equivalent” to non-GMO corn in order to ensure that it is not present in the animal after it has eaten and digested the crop.

Marketing Misrepresentation

Don’t fall for the food fear misrepresentation. For companies to claim their food is healthier or safer because their animals do not eat GMO feed is not only scientifically untrue, it perpetuates consumer confusion and fear. Each year, millions of animals are grown on GMO feed – none of them have documented evidence that they have had ill health due to GMOs. What we do have is researched evidence that meat is identical from GMO vs non-GMO-fed animals.

Finally, let’s look at this practically. Your meat and eggs are cooked and your milk is pasteurized. The GMO proteins in the animal feed become inactive after heating. If, by chance, there are any small GMO proteins left, they are attacked by the animal’s digestive enzymes. They are then converted into amino acids, where it can either be used to build its own proteins, for energy, or break down and exit the body. By the time you eat the meat or dairy, all of these scenarios would never adversely affect your body, digestive process, or even change your own genes. 

Posted on

Manuka Honey: Life Changer or Money Waster?

I don’t know about you, but I am always a sucker for the latest superfood, cure-all, next-best-thing! I love to try products out for myself, but always wonder if it will actually work. And can I do any harm in the process of my personal exploration?

What’s the 411 on Manuka Honey?

Manuka honey, different from regular honey, is being hailed as liquid gold because of the supposed healing and antimicrobial powers of this superfood. The emergence of Manuka popularity comes on the heels of new superbug discoveries claiming that antibiotic-resistant pathogens can be treated with Manuka honey. The medical field has started dealing with these pathogens in alternative ways, thus Manuka honey’s gain in recent popularity due to its ability to slow down or prevent bacterial growth.

However, what comes from a spark? A fire. And the claims of Manuka honey began to spread. Instead of an accurate portrayal of an alternative antimicrobial substance that is under scientific investigation, thanks to social media, we have gone from zero to a hundred in less than 5 seconds.

What are the supposed health claims?

Manuka honey has carbohydrates, minerals, vitamins, and phenolic and flavonoid compounds. However, what makes Manuka particularly unique are three special ingredients: methylglyoxal, dihydroxyacetone, and leptosperin. MGO is said to fight off several bacteria-related infections. Dihydroxyacetone, a precursor chemical of MGO, is found in the nectar. Leptosperin is a natural chemical from manuka nectar that makes the product shelf-stable. When these ingredients work together, they enable this particular honey to potentially fight off several bacteria-related infections.

The combination of these ingredients is touted to reduce allergies, boost immune function, enhance skin, improve sleep, combat staph infections, reduce IBS, prevent tooth and gum decay, treat infected wounds, burns and ulcers. Sounds like another Celery Juice cure-all!

Is there a scientific foundation for these claims?

To be frank, scientific studies do not exist to support every health claim out there. Investigations into some of the supposed benefits are in the works, but here is what we found on its efficacy…

Evidence for treating all these ailments remains largely anecdotal. However, a few small studies have concluded that Manuka honey can aid in treating gingivitis. By chewing what they refer to as “Manuka honey leather”, plaque was reduced, and ultimately was proven to be a positive treatment for oral health.

The most compelling studies show that Manuka honey can help to inhibit or stop the growth of certain topical bacteria – especially compared to other types of honey. This study showed that when Manuka is used in wound protection, it elicits antibacterial results. Continued study is critical as chronic wounds resistant to antibiotics are a global health issue around the world.

For instance, a friend of mine had a terrible bacteria infection on her face and antibiotic cream didn’t work. She tried Manuka honey – and it disappeared with a week. However, it has been determined that replications to these clinical studies are needed before claims like this can be truly confirmed.

Ultimately, there is little evidence to support the purported benefits. However, it is safe to consume, can be a natural and safe topical antibiotic, and there is likely little harm in trying it. Western medicine often refers to it as a ‘worthless but harmless substance‘. Unless you have a bee allergy, of course – then take caution!

So what exactly is Manuka Honey?

Manuka honey comes from the manuka bush, which is indigenous to New Zealand and Australia. Some argue that only the “real” manuka comes from New Zealand. In fact, the two countries are actually in a dispute for the trademark over the health product.

The honey itself comes from the flower nectar on the manuka bush. But both the nectar and the bees together are what give manuka its unique properties. It is thicker in texture than other types of honey. It tastes less sweet, though it can still be used in drinks, as a spread, and for baking.

The UMF Honey Association developed the term UMF, or Unique Manuka Factor, that grades the honey as to whether it meets the UMF Honey Association standards. The ideal score is between 10 and 18, and is based on certain chemical markers unique to the manuka plant. However, more research needs to be done to determine whether this rating has any significance. Brands that use the rating system include Manukora, Comvita, and Happy Valley.

 

Where can I buy Manuka Honey?

It’s widely available now – even at Walgreens and CVS. In fact, I just bought some at Whole Foods to see if it’ll help my mosquito bites heal. While I could not determine if it was time or the honey that helped heal the bites, it was worth a shot on such a mild affliction.

With its uses spanning from topical application, to cooking, and now in the healthcare spectrum, Manuka is a well-known product to specialty grocery store shelves, as well as many eCommerce sites. It comes in its raw form, in a supplement, and in a variety of products where Manuka honey is the primary or active ingredient. This includes beauty products, throat lozenges, face washes, hair masks and acne treatments.

How can I be sure it’s the real stuff?

For starters, don’t forget that Manuka is currently only made in Australia and New Zealand, so if a label says any other origin, it is likely not real Manuka. Another thing to note is that many labels state that their honey is “natural” or “organic”. These two labels do not mean that the honey is Manuka; you must look for the word “Manuka” in the ingredients list. Another good sign is the cost: Manuka is currently averaging about $30 a jar, or between $50 and $150 for supplements, so if the price you see is less than this average cost, be sure to confirm.

Posted on

What Are Dead Zones…and is Ag to Blame?

You may have heard of “dead zones”, a term used for areas in large bodies of water where marine life cannot be sustained because of rampant algae growth. To some ardent critics of animal agriculture, these dead zones can be traced to overdependence on animals as a cornerstone component of the modern global food system.

Agriculture and, in particular, production of beef and dairy cattle, as well as the corn and soybeans grown to feed the animals, are the primary targets under attack. Essentially, almost all U.S. crops feed into the Mississippi River Basin. But there is little, if any, attention called to the other sources of the troublesome run-off that causes massive algae growth.

So how do these dead zones occur? And is agriculture really to blame for these problem areas? And, most importantly, what is being done to bring life back to these dead zones?

How are Dead Zones created?

Dead zones occur from too much nitrogen and phosphorus in the water, most in the form of run-off from use and misuse of fertilizers, inadequate wastewater control, improperly managed animal wastes, and plain old natural phenomena, such as the heavy rains and flooding that plagued major parts of the United States earlier this year.

Hypoxia is the scientific term for having too little oxygen to support life. In a hypoxic zone, animal life simply suffocates and dies. Hypoxia occurs when excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus stimulate the growth of algae, which sinks and decomposes in water. The decomposition process consumes the oxygen needed by other marine life – impairing gestation, compromising egg production, or simply suffocating much of the life in the water.

Dead zones emerge from a complex web of sources:

Where do Dead Zones exist?

Currently, there are approximately 405 dead zones around the world and in different bodies of water, but mostly along coastlines. The Arabian Sea is currently the largest one with a continual lack of oxygen preventing marine life from growing.

The Baltic Sea dead zone is also massive, at more than 23,000 square miles and stretching from Poland to Finland. Smaller hypoxic areas have emerged in Lake Erie and oceanic conditions off the shores of California and Oregon are currently being monitored for a possible return of a Pacific dead zone.

NOAA scientists are forecasting this summer’s Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone or ‘dead zone’ to be approximately 7,829 square miles or roughly the size of the land mass of Massachusetts.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s June 10, 2019 Media Release

The second largest dead zone is the northern Gulf of Mexico. Some industry experts estimate that the Gulf of Mexico supplies 72 percent of U.S. harvested shrimp, 66 percent of harvested oysters and 16 percent of commercial fish. So a dead zone here not only leads to a meaningful loss of shrimp, crabs, oysters, fish, and other marine life, but also disrupts a large commercial industry that provides products in high demand by food consumers. The same situation is also happening in the Chesapeake Bay, where 500 million pounds of seafood are harvested each year, primarily oysters, blue crabs, and striped bass.

Source: World Resources Institute

Waterways feeding the Dead Zones

The challenge in addressing the dead zone problem isn’t just the multiplicity of sources behind the problem.  It’s also the sheer physical size of the area involved.

Waterways such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Chesapeake Bay, and U.S. Great Lakes draw water from an enormous network of sources.  Potential pollutants can come not just from areas immediately adjacent to the dead zone, but also from potentially huge areas where run-off may occur.

For example, the Gulf of Mexico is fed by the Mississippi River basin – an area that encompasses 33 major river systems, more than 200 estuaries, and drains 41% of the contiguous United States. About four out of five acres used to produce corn and soybeans in this country are within it, as is more than half of all U.S. agricultural land, with an estimated annual production value of close to $100 billion.  Such a vast drainage area shows just how important extensive flooding – like that seen across huge swatches of the Midwest this spring — can be in the creation of a dead zone.

Source: mississippiriverdelta.org

Farming solutions to curb Dead Zone formation

Broad communities of scientists, environmentalists, farmers, ranchers, and others are joining together to tackle the problem – with the encouraging results that merit a continued mutual effort to protect one of the natural resources critical to a sustainable global food system.

In the world of agriculture, there are aggressive educational efforts to commit to responsible crop and herd management. Many farmers are employing technology to help reduce run-off through chemical and nutrient over-application, such as:

  • Precision agriculture combined with “micro nutrient” technology that fosters the application of the precisely correct type and amount of nutrients, herbicides, and pesticides

  • Genetic engineered crops also help reduce the amount of agricultural chemicals

  • Sound conservation practices such as no-tilling, proper crop rotation, and use of cover crops

Ranchers and dairy farmers are also proactively managing animal waste to help reduce run-off and revitalize these dead zones.

In fact, nearly nine out of every 10 farmers and ranchers recently surveyed by the industry’s National Cattleman’s Beef Association say they manage manure and waste in a proper manner that safeguards air and water.

Innovative programs developed by producers have helped find environmentally responsible uses for surplus manure, such as:

  • Expanded use of sanitized and pelletized manure for use in organic farming

  • Distribution arrangements with gardening and landscaping enterprises interested in expanded use of non-chemical fertilizers

  • “Spread the wealth” by finding available surplus storage and composting opportunities for “black gold,” as ranchers often call manure

  • The Environmental Protection Agency is facing lawsuits from environmental groups to speed their updating of wastewater guidelines for animal processing facilities, and public pressure on these companies is growing

Working together for real results

Despite what ag critics may say, there are multiple sources contributing to the problem. Many of the golf courses, housing developments, and other urban development areas that were previously undeveloped are now inadvertently contributing to the rising risks of run-off, and ultimately the growth of the occurrence and size of dead zones.

On the municipal wastewater front, state and federal agencies report an expansion in the number of municipal water management authorities monitoring nitrogen and phosphorus levels in their facilities, and perhaps more important, in establishing limits for each element in discharge levels.

On an even-broader scale, several task forces have been created to find long-term solutions to the management of U.S. dead zones. For example, the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force includes representatives of agencies from almost all states along the Mississippi, from Louisiana to Minnesota, as well as federal agencies such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce and Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Tribal Water Council.

Their goal is to reduce the size of the Gulf dead zone to 5,000 square kilometers (roughly 1,900 square miles) by 2035, with an interim goal of a 20 percent reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus loading by 2025. We have already seen significant progress in achieving its goals.

Posted on

What Does the Market Hold for Alternative Proteins?

alternative protein burger

Burger King recently ran into a surprising problem: it ran out of burgers.

Well, not exactly. The restaurant still had plenty of ground beef and other traditional ingredients on hand, but at the end of June, the burger chain was running low on the new, meatless burgers from Beyond Meat that had been added to its menu last year, according to The Wall Street Journal.

What’s changing? Consumers.

And Burger King wasn’t alone. Burger chain White Castle, which added Impossible Foods’ meatless burgers last year, reported similar shortages, as did restaurants including TGI Fridays, Del Taco, CKE Restaurant Holdings’ Carl’s Jr., Red Robin, and others.

That’s right, consumer demand for alternative meat products has officially arrived.

In fact, White Castle leadership credited the 4 percentage point increase in same-store sales to its Impossible Sliders. As of this spring, a full 15% of U.S. restaurants offered meatless products, according to market research firm Technomic, accounting for nearly 20,000 locations nationwide, a figure that was up 3% year-over-year.

Younger shoppers, in particular, are looking for healthier, more sustainable alternatives to the usual meat-and-potatoes menus of their parents’ and grandparents’ generations. According to Technomic, 71% of consumers now eat seafood at least once a month and 50% eat vegetarian or vegan dishes at least once a month. Meatless burgers and other alternative proteins are one way for restaurants to reach these diners.

“This desire for flexibility highlights the fact that dietary lifestyle choices are often not all-or-nothing decisions for consumers…Semi-vegetarian and flexitarian diets appeal to those who aspire to eat healthier while still providing leeway to splurge on meat or seafood occasionally. To cater to shifting behaviors, operators can offer protein substitutes for certain dishes or create a handful of build-your-own options that give consumers an even greater level of control.”

– Bret Yonke, Manager of Consumer Insights at Technomic

These findings line up with what Chris Kerr, Chief Investment Officer with New Crop Capital, a venture capital fund focused on investing in plant-based alternative protein technologies, has been seeing on an anecdotal basis in the market for the last year-plus. In Kerr’s view, it all comes down to awareness, price, taste and convenience, and we’ve reached the tipping point on all four.

R&D advancements in recent years have led to massive improvements in alternative protein taste and texture. That’s attracted new investment capital to support marketing and product design efforts. And that has brought about new consumer awareness and interest.

“It’s just a self-feeding loop that is basically allowing all this to happen,” Kerr says. “What it’s demonstrating is that there’s all this pent up demand, and now that all of these dollars are finding their way into the market it’s bringing in more attention and the large food companies are playing a role in [alternative proteins] in a way that they haven’t for the last 50 years.”

And that fact matters a lot, because the leading global food providers are large, diversified corporations that can make or break new markets like these.

Consumers demand taste and variety

Buyers today are more concerned about their health, more socially conscious and aware of where their food comes from. Because of this, they are more accepting of alternatives to meat, dairy, eggs and other proteins than previous generations as a result. However, taste is still king, and without it, these products won’t succeed.

Explains Kerr, “If taste doesn’t drive this, everything else fails. I think what’s really happened is that companies like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods have convinced people that they don’t have to settle for plain old quinoa burgers anymore.”

It’s not that there’s a huge new population becoming vegan. According to Gallup, less than 10% of Americans adhere to either a vegetarian or vegan diet and those numbers have been steady for years. But what has changed is a new acceptance of alternative proteins in the marketplace.

“Many people today are embracing this idea that we don’t have to eat meat as our sole source of protein,” says Kerr, ”and I think that’s the real driver behind what’s going on right now. From gay rights to cannabis, a lot of social stigmas have changed, and I see plant-based eating right in there as well. That wasn’t the case even five years ago. That’s the tipping point.”

A growing market

Of course, there’s far more to the alternative protein space than just well-known names like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods. A fast growing segment, the plant protein market value is expected to grow 55% in just six years, according to Persistence Market Research.

Source: Statista.com.

For one thing, established industry players like Tyson and Cargill have gotten into the game, as well. Tyson Foods recently announced their plans to start selling pea protein nuggets this year, in addition to a blended pea and beef burger, potentially bringing alternative proteins to a huge new market. Cargill has invested in lab-grown meat startup Memphis Meats, pea protein producer PURIS, and Calysta, which is developing methane-based proteins. Even Ikea, the Swedish purveyor of flat-packet furniture, is getting into the game with a new plant-based version of their iconic Swedish meatballs.

The science behind alternative protein technology is far from a new development, considering that companies like Kraft and Kellogg have been selling for years. But it is only now finding broad consumer reach and appeal thanks to a range of new developments and innovations.

Atlantic Natural Foods, the manufacturer of Loma Linda®, Neat® and Kaffree Roma™ brand products, produces alternatives for seafood, beef and pork products. The company aims to create affordable, sustainable and healthy sources of plant-based protein, with a focus not only on what today’s shoppers are looking for, but also what is driving future trends.

Laura Lapp, innovation brand manager explains:

“Plants are remarkable in the way the texture, size and shape can be made to mimic traditionally animal-based foods. We’ve gotten really creative with soy and have now produced what looks just like conventional tuna. We’re using real seaweed too, which has the flavor of the ocean, but doesn’t harm the ocean.”

Equinom, an Israeli seed-breeding company, is working a step up the alternative proteins supply chain, breeding various grain crops with an eye toward bringing better protein to the world.  While it used to focus on crops for feed and biodiesel, it has turned its eye toward human health. Currently, it is working to create 50% more protein from already high protein crops, such as soybeans, pea, sesame and chickpeas. Others that have potential are cowpeas, green peas, mung beans, and quinoa.

“We believe we could reduce the cost of plant-protein also as a viable cost-effective alternative to meat protein with better taste and functionality,” Dana says. “We want to make it clear to the market that plant protein are here to stay and this is not a trend.”

Looking ahead

In such a fast-moving industry, we’ll continue to see many players challenging the alternative protein space. For instance, did you know you can create protein out of thin air? It sounds impossible, but clean tech experts from Finland, Solar Foods can build edible proteins with just CO2, electricity, and water!

At the end of the day, the market for alternative proteins is facing a perfect storm event – product quality has reached a point where even meat eaters are looking at plant-based proteins as tasty options, interest in health and wellness have moved front and center for many buyers, and demand for protein in all forms continues to rise worldwide along with rising standards of living. The challenge is aligning the resources, along with the manufacturing and distribution capabilities, to make it all a reality.

Posted on

On the Farm & In the Books: FFA Spotlight on Katherine Smith

ffa katherine smith

The Future Farmers of America (FFA) is the premier youth organization preparing members for leadership and careers in the science, business and technology of agriculture. In an effort to spread the word about the inspiring efforts of leading FFA members, Dirt to Dinner will be highlighting some participant stories.

Our first featured story is about Katherine Smith. Through her extensive work on the farm and in the books, Katherine sees the biggest challenge in modern agriculture is helping smallholder farmers achieve profitability through financial stability and process improvement, and her mission is to make that happen.

Here is Katherine’s story told from her unique point of view. She details how she found her special niche in ag and what she is doing to further her career in the industry.

I grew up in Lynden, Washington, an agricultural community known for our dairies and berries. 90% of North America’s red raspberries are grown within a 50-mile radius of Lynden. My grandparents live on the south coast of Oregon and are organic cranberry farmers. Growing up, I always got to skip at least a week of school during October so that my family could go down to help with the harvest. Perhaps one of my fondest memories was my grandma teaching me how to do long division on a cardboard box so that I could calculate something for the farm. From a young age, I knew I wanted to work in agriculture. I loved how there was always a new challenge to solve, whether that was machinery breaking or trying to figure out a better way to complete our work.

I first joined FFA during my freshman year of high school because I wanted to show pigs at the local fair. I’d been involved in poultry 4-H, but my mom thought FFA was a better fit. I joined the Livestock Judging team because I figured that would be a good way to make me a better and more knowledgeable showman. However, I wasn’t that committed to FFA until after my judging team went to state and ended up placing second. This meant that I was now going to the state convention the following week for the awards on stage.

At the first State dinner, one of the advisors asked me if I was good at math. I said sure, and he asked if I wanted to join the Farm Business Management team since they had an extra spot. The Farm Business Management competition is a three-hour agricultural economics, accounting, and finance test.

That was a pivotal moment for me; from then on, FFA became my passion. I ended up raising hogs, competing in Livestock Judging, Horse Judging, Farm Business Management, Parliamentary Procedures, and Extemporaneous Public Speaking. I served as a chapter and district officer and ran for state office.

The summer following my senior year of high school, I began working as a Quality Control Lab tech at Enfield Farms, Inc. in Lynden, WA. Enfields grows, processes, and packages individually quick-frozen raspberries and blueberries, in addition to puree and juice stock products. Having grown up working on my grandparent’s organic fresh fruit cranberry farm, I had experience with processing fruit and thoroughly enjoyed my work at Enfield’s.

The following summer I was offered an internship with the Quality Control department. Through that internship, I continued my work in the lab, but also performed a study on storage temperatures and the formation of ice crystals. I then assisted in the development of a process to allocate pallets of finished product to different product codes based on quality.

My third summer at Enfield’s, my internship changed a bit to focus on Food Safety and Inventory Control. During that summer, we implemented a new warehouse management system and I worked with the inventory tracking personnel to take raw fruit weight measurements and label-finished product according to the product codes given by the process I had worked on the previous year. I also worked with production employees to ensure food safety protocols were followed.

Last summer, my job title was Production Quality Coordinator. I was responsible for ensuring the correct operation of our inventory tracking process within the processing plant, the product disposition process, and shipping finished pallets to the various cold storage facilities.

While in college, my hope had been to work with my grandparents to expand their cranberry operation and to eventually move into farming full-time. As a result, I began majoring in biochemistry since the university with the best scholarship didn’t have an agricultural program. I started taking some business classes, as well, and eventually realized my passion for accounting.

Perhaps I should have figured this out a little sooner because as soon as I graduated high school, I began coaching my chapter’s Farm Business Management team and have always been passionate about bringing business and agriculture together. I ended up changing my major to Accounting during my junior year and miraculously still managed to graduate on time.

In college, I realized that while my grandparent’s farm is great for them in their retirement, the amount of capital required to expand it to the point where it would be profitable for a family is extensive. At the moment, I am studying for my Certified Public Accountant (CPA) exams and this fall will begin working for a local public accounting firm with a lot of agricultural clients. While at the moment I’m not pursuing agriculture full-time, my plan is to save my money and slowly work into farming for myself.

Over the last few years, I’ve learned that I love educating people about agriculture, working to develop new processes, and the challenges provided by agriculture. My hope is that I will be able to use my business education and agricultural experience to help farmers do business better so that they can continue to do what they love. Whether that means that I continue in accounting or end up with my own farm, I think I can achieve those objectives either way.

Stay tuned for more Future Farmers of America stories like this. If you would like to get involved with FFA, visit www.ffa.org. If you’re a fellow FFA and want to share your story, or tell us more about an inspiring FFA member, please email us at info@dirt-to-dinner.com – we’d love to hear your stories!

 

 

Posted on

Can GMOs Make Me Sick?

gmo, tortilla chips

According to a survey done by GMO Answers, only 32% of consumers are comfortable having GMOs in their food. Google “GMOs” and you will find a plethora of scary statements:

  • “GMOs damage our microbiome and can cause a leaky gut.”

  • “GMO wheat created gluten allergies.”

  • “GMOs may make my genes mutate and cause cancer.”

  • “Eating a GM diet causes liver damage.”

  • “Stomach lesions are linked to FLAVR SAVR tomatoes.”

  • “Pets fed GMOs have organ damage, cancer, allergies and more.”

No wonder consumers are concerned! At D2D, we’ve heard comments like these all too often. So we dug into exactly what happens in our bodies when we eat food that has been grown with a GMO.

First off, let’s understand a little more about GMO crops. As you may know from reading our previous post, GMOs are Confusing: A Recipe for Understanding, genetically changing a crop simply means adding in one or two targeted genes from another organism to achieve a desired outcome.

Another thing to know is that there are only 10 commercially available GMO crops: corn, soy, cotton, canola, sugar beets, alfalfa, papaya, squash, apples and potatoes. If you read something scary about “GMO wheat”, or even see “Non-GMO water”, consider yourself armed with knowledge because now you know there’s no such thing.

What exactly happens when you eat a GMO?

As I write this, my husband and I are watching the pink and orange sunset from our garden patio. While dipping my corn chips in the salsa, my husband wryly asks if it contains any GMOs. I chew the corn chip and salsa. Whether the corn chip has GMOs or not, it is still loaded with genes. Every living organism has genes and corn has as many as 32,000 genes.

I am pretty confident that my body knows how to digest proteins as it has been doing so my entire life. I have eaten tons of GMO food over the past 20 years and I am still healthy. How does my body do this?

Using enzymes in my saliva and intestine, I, like all humans, am able to digest hundreds of thousands of proteins every single day. Trypsin and Chymotrypsin are digestive enzymes found in our saliva, gut, and small intestine, that break proteins down into peptides and amino acids. Our bodies use these as building blocks which, in turn, produce new proteins that control hormones, create muscle, and other very necessary functions. In fact, every cell in our bodies have proteins that were directed by specific genes.

Digesting GMO and Non-GMO Foods: It’s All the Same!

Simply put, GMOs provide a few added proteins into the crop. By inserting these genes into the DNA, researchers are ultimately adding in a non-corn protein to the corn plant. These proteins may provide either additional nutrition to a crop, give a crop insect resistance, tolerate herbicides, or even create a greater yield.

Different types of proteins are affected in a variety of ways when cooked. For instance, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a soil bacterium that produces a protein that kills corn-attacking insects and is a common gene inserted into corn crops. These Bt proteins in my processed corn chips become inactive after cooking. If, by chance, there are any small protein pieces left, they are attacked by the enzymes in the mouth and stomach. They are then converted into amino acids, where the body can either use them to build its own proteins, use them for energy, or break down and exit the body.

But what if it isn’t cooked? You may have read about the citrus greening disease, which has killed millions of citrus plants in the Southeastern U.S. via an infected insect. To combat this, a GMO orange was created to resist the citrus greening. An anti-citrus greening gene from the spinach plant was isolated and inserted to protect the trees.

So, if you are allergic to spinach, will you now be allergic to genetically modified oranges? No, because the specific gene from the spinach plant was tested for human allergens before it was used in oranges.

What studies have been done to ensure human safety?

First of all, to be sold commercially in the United States, the EPA, FDA and USDA must agree that the genetically-modified crops are safe for human consumption and for the environment. Before a GMO comes on the market it is tested for human allergies and toxicity. Clinical testing has been conducted to determine changes to a genetic profile, effects on fertility, effects on internal organs, and nutritional composition.

 “Foods from GE plants must meet the same food safety requirements as foods derived from traditionally bred plants” – FDA website

In addition, health groups such as the American Medical Association, WHO, Mayo Clinic, Royal Society of Medicine, European Commission, American Council on Health Science, OECD, FAO, American Society of Microbiology, just to list a few, have all concluded – from independent research – that GMOs are safe in our food system.

Researchers in the U.S. and countries around the world have completed hundreds of individual peer-reviewed studies that report on tests on GMOs in the environment and on human and animal health. The Center for Environmental Risk Assessment has compiled a database open to the public where you can see most of these studies. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has also compiled a most comprehensive research on genetically engineered crops and food.

Given the extreme testing that GMO crops are subjected to, some scientists even argue that they are safer than traditional crops!

Some conventional crops carry genes that have the potential to cause harm when eaten. When a non-GMO potato is deep fried, a new chemical is created during the cooking process: a carcinogen called acrylamide. A variety of GM potatoes have been altered to produce less acrylamide when deep fried than a regular potato. To reduce the levels of acrylamide created from the cooking process, a natural protein is added to potatoes to reduce the production of this carcinogen.

Food fear is so prevalent online. For instance, GMO FLAVR SAVR tomatoes are not even on the market anymore, but critics continue to talk about it. The gene used to keep it fresh was the ‘reverse’ of the tomato fruit enzyme, which softens fruit but the public demanded it gone from grocery stores due to pervasive misunderstanding about GMOs.

Understandably, with all the information we read on the internet, it is hard to know what to believe. As I eat my chips and salsa, short of conducting the research myself, I choose to believe the 30 years’ work of independent scientists, researchers, and government organizations that have been published as peer-reviewed studies. The science says my corn chips are safe, so I confidently eat another chip and pass the bowl to my husband.

Posted on

Fair Oaks Farms: Taking Responsibility

Fair Oaks Farms

What happened on Fair Oaks Farm is surprising, unacceptable and horrifying. Animal Recovery Mission (ARM) videotaped five people, four of whom were employees, severely abusing calves. Fair Oaks had previously terminated three of these employees before the videos were released. The fourth, who was behind the video camera, was terminated after the videos were released. Additionally, there was a truck driver involved who worked for Midwest Veal, a company that picks up and delivers calves between farms or for delivery to processors. He is now banned from any Fair Oaks Farm.

A few years ago, I was so excited to hear about the partnership between Fair Oaks Farms in Indiana and Coca Cola. They created a new technology that gives us healthy nutrients, such as DHA and more protein, while reducing the sugar and fat compared to other milks.  They have committed to traceability and sustainable farming – which includes exceptional cow care.  I have never looked back.

CEO Takes Full Responsibility

It is not the challenges that define you as an individual or a company, it is how you handle them and prevent them from occurring again.

Mike McCloskey, CEO of Fair Oaks Farms, immediately took control and made a statement:

I am disgusted by and take full responsibility for the actions seen in the footage, as it goes against everything that we stand for in regards to responsible cow care and comfort. The employees featured in the video exercised a complete and total disregard for the documented training that all employees go through to ensure the comfort, safety and well-being of our animals.

While they already have a strong policy which adheres to each animal’s welfare, Fair Oaks Farms has now strengthened it further. It is due to their existing policy of “if you see something – say something”, they were able to fire the three criminals well before the videos came out. His additional policies not only will make Fair Oaks cows more protected, but this will most likely filter out to other large dairies, thus making animal welfare an even more significant focus on his farms.

McCloskey guarantees this will not happen again at Fair Oaks Farms, as he has already implemented the following protocols since the incident:

  • Invested in a 24-hour camera system at each point where animals and personnel interact. This will stream live into the public domain and the Fair Oaks Adventure Center.

  • Contracted with a third-party animal welfare company to perform random audits on his facility and expects that they will be on his facilities every other week. They will report directly to McCloskey.

  • Hired an animal welfare specialist to continually train all employees at all locations and be responsible for reporting on animal welfare. All employees will continue their animal welfare training upon hiring.

  • Working with an attorney to prosecute the employees in the video and any future animal abusers.

Changing an Industry for the Better

This fallout has caused some grocery stores to pull Fairlife from their shelves. Some people have elicited a ban on Fair Oaks dairy products, or even dairy itself, saying that the entire industry abuses their animals. This is not true. This is not the first time some twisted individual has infiltrated a company in an attempt to spread rhetoric like this.

How many of us take Tylenol or other over-the-counter anti-inflammatories? If you recall the Tylenol scare in 1982, someone replaced extra-strength Tylenol pills with deadly cyanide-laced capsules pills inside the Tylenol bottles, resealed the boxes and put them on pharmacy shelves near Chicago. Seven people died. Jim Burke, the CEO, immediately pulled all Tylenol bottles off the shelves and set the new standard for safety. Johnson & Johnson was the first company to implement triple-sealed tamper-resistant packaging. We, the consumers, didn’t reject all anti-inflammatories as a result of this disaster.

Who’s Next to Take Responsibility?

In the Fair Oaks case, there are a couple of unanswered questions:

  • If ARM has the best interest of the animals at stake, why didn’t the person behind the video camera report the abuse immediately? It is difficult enough to watch the video – how could someone film this without saying something?

  • Who was the person behind the camera? Was it one of the three employees who was fired?

  • The videos ended in October of 2018; why did it take nine months to report such abusive behavior?

We might never know the answers. What we do know is that workplace violence is a form of terrorism, in this case, on animals.

Supporting the dairy industry is more important than ever. 95% of American dairy farms are family owned. The U.S. dairy industry employs, directly and indirectly, almost 3 million people with over 40,000 farms and 1,300 facilities. Banning an entire industry because of five violent individuals just doesn’t make sense.

Posted on

Temple Grandin’s Advice to Fair Oaks Farms

cows

The original article was published on June 17, 2019 at MEAT + POULTRY as Editor’s Blog: Temple Grandin’s advice to Fair Oaks Farms in undercover video aftermath.

The recent release of undercover video footage by Animal Recovery Mission, depicting animal cruelty at a dairy production facility owned by Fair Oaks Farms called into question the Fair Oaks, Indiana-based company’s animal welfare practices and has triggered a proactive response from the company. Founder Mike McCloskey, DVM, has published a series of video messages on the Fair Oaks Farms website, expressing his disappointment in the content of the footage and the company’s plan to rectify the situation, which included terminating the four individuals responsible for the animal cruelty. As part of a series of videos on the company’s website, he also pledged to share the enhancements to the company’s animal welfare practices moving forward.

Animal welfare expert Temple Grandin, Ph.D., a professor of animal science at Colorado State Univ. and a contributing editor to MEAT+POULTRY praised the company’s response to the video and suggested some next steps for Fair Oaks to take. She also addressed some of the underlying issues related to the latest incident that should be addressed by all stakeholders in the dairy and beef industry supply chain. Below is Grandin’s response, emailed to M+P:

Mike McCloskey, the founder of Fair Oaks Farm, delivered an excellent response. Fair Oaks has been a leader in agritourism and his dairy is open for public tours. He admitted that employee training was not sufficient and that video cameras are going to be installed throughout the farm. For further transparency, visitors in his museum and visitor’s center will be able to view the cameras. Therefore, visitors will always be watching.

During its investigation, Animal Recovery Mission representatives followed a trailer full of very young calves to a veal farm that had old-style confined crates. It was a crate design that should have been phased out years ago. The most modern veal farms use a much-less restrictive system.

Meanwhile, the entire dairy industry must address the issue of bull calves. In some parts of the country, they are fed in beef feedlots to produce beef. Holstein steers produce excellent beef, but unless they are fed carefully, they may have severe liver abscesses that cause line stoppages at processing plants. Another problem is that Holstein steers can grow really tall and they drag on the floor during processing. Some fed-beef plants now have a height indicator at the unloading chute. Animals that are too tall are rejected. There is one major fed-beef plant that has stopped processing Holstein beef because they cause too many problems.

The dairy industry must stop treating beef as a byproduct

Additionally, the dairy industry must stop treating beef as a byproduct. Some dairies have already started using beef semen and sell all the calves produced with it for beef. Common choices of semen are either Angus or Angus x Simmental. Some of the animal abuse on the video was directed at weak calves that refused to walk. Beef breed calves are often more vigorous and walk more easily. The ideal beef semen would produce a small, vigorous calf that would not grow too tall. A possible factor contributing to numerous liver abscesses is feeding cattle too much grain to quickly fatten the animals before they become too tall.

To be proactive, Fair Oaks and many other dairies should follow bull calves throughout the supply chain. Loading bull calves on a trailer and pretending they disappear is no longer acceptable. The entire dairy industry needs to change. The silver lining in this is that developing a really good beef business would help offset low milk prices.

Four next steps for Fair Oaks Farms

  • Start using beef semen to produce high-quality beef calves;

  • Create relationships with calf producers and feedlot operators who feed the dairy beef animals. Also, choose feedlots that are well-designed for drainage so steers will stay clean and provide shade for the steers;

  • Use pain relief medication for castration; and

  • Develop an auditing and inspection system for the dairy beef cattle.

The dairy industry can no longer ignore the bull calf problem. They need to take steps to get control of what happens to bull calves. Really progressive managers may have the vision to develop a new specialty beef market, which will enable them to make money when milk prices are low.

Posted on

Electromagnetic Fields: Protecting Yourself through Nutrition

phone food emfs

All day long, I am surrounded by electromagnetic fields. I wake up to the alarm on my phone. When I get to work, I fire up my laptop and connect to the internet. For lunch, I reheat leftovers in the microwave from the night before. As I drive home from work, I turn on the radio or chat on the phone with loved ones. After dinner, I use the remote to turn on my Apple TV and watch my favorite shows. And there are probably dozens of additional points of contact with electromagnetic fields that I’m completely unaware of.

All devices with radio waves or a Wi-Fi connection emit electric and magnetic fields, often referred to as EMFs. Recent research on rats have shown a correlation, depending on levels and frequencies of exposure, of low-frequency electromagnetic fields and the growth of cancer cells.

These EMFs can cause cellular damage similar to other health hazards, like pollution, smoking and a poor diet. But there’s no need to throw away all your wireless electronics – you can combat any possible negative effects with specific foods and nutrition.

This chart illustrates the low-level, or non-ionizing radiation fields on the left, opposed to ionizing radiation on the right (to which we have significantly less exposure). Adverse health effects from long-term exposure to these low-level fields is currently a matter of debate.

What do EMFs do to our bodies?

All living creatures generate electric and magnetic currents within our bodies.  These waves help to stimulate nerves, muscle movements and other biological functions.  Likewise, we also experience a natural magnetic force from the Earth, which is why a compass points its way north and birds know to fly south in the wintertime. The forces of these fields are charged particles of matter comprised of electrons and protons.

As a helpful visual, have you ever seen a rusty old car deteriorating in a farm field?  Or tossed out an apple or banana too brown and overripe to eat? This is a chemical process called oxidation. EMFs can have a similar effect on your cells. When radiation penetrates the cells in our bodies, it activates a negative cellular stress response. In the human body, when some of our atoms lose electrons, they produce free radicals, which can trigger oxidative stress in your cells.

This deteriorates our cells similar to the rusty old car due to an overabundance of free radicals that destroy the cell membranes. Ultimately, the cells weaken and die. In addition, these free radicals damage DNA, fatty tissue, proteins, and the mitochondria, which can lead to serious health problems. But we can combat these stresses. Antioxidants are the white knights that destroy those radical-floating electrons.

When EMFs penetrate a cell’s nucleus, it bypasses the cell’s defense mechanisms completely by generating what are called reactive oxygen species (ROS). EMFs can cause an overproduction of ROS. And while ROS are not always bad, they can become toxic when unregulated due to excess amounts of free radical production that occurs. This causes oxidative stress, which can lead to a myriad of chronic illnesses.

“Research has shown that EMF exposure does elicit change at a cellular level. New technological stressors, like advancements to 5G technology, are increasing exponentially. We cannot change that. What we can do is make sure our bodies are fully fortified with all the vitamins and minerals it needs to fights the effects of EMFs.”  

– Jeffery Palmer, Director, Brain Health & Energy Medicine at Third Space

Even with all this information, it is important to note that the literature and studies are limited when detailing health problems associated with EMF exposures. Most of the evidence is derived from animal studies at a cellular level. The World Health Organization has done some research via monographs as to varying electromagnetic levels and have found there’s no need for concern at this time. However, they continue to assess the effects of EMFs using other methodologies, as isolating variables as it relates to human health is very hard to capture.

Foods that fight!

Diet can play a key role in strengthening your antioxidant capacity by increasing our intake of foods that have protectant capabilities against EMFs. For example, cruciferous vegetables, like broccoli, brussels sprouts, kale and cabbage, contain nutrients that inhibit certain types of cancers, are high in antioxidant compounds and have anti-radiation properties.

Furthermore, focusing on fermented foods like yogurt, buttermilk and unprocessed cheeses can promote friendly bacteria that help to evict byproducts of radiation exposure. Foods containing omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin C, zinc, vitamin E, selenium, melatonin, cysteine and other phytonutrient-rich foods all help to protect the body from cancer-causing cell growth from exposure to EMFs. Think spinach, almonds, eggs, oranges, salmon, walnuts and cherries.  The chart below is helpful for identifying foods rich in EMF-protectant nutrients.

What else can we do to protect ourselves?

To combat the growing challenge of EMF exposure, the doctors we spoke with recommend a holistic approach to whole body health.  To rid cells of free radicals and battle oxidative stress, our bodies needs to be in peak performance shape. This means you are getting enough sleep, feel emotionally fulfilled, and debatably the most important component—fortifying your body with the right nutrients.  This will not only help protect your body from EMFs, but other external stressors.

By strengthening your cells, you allow your body to remove oxidative stress, toxins, and free radicals. It gives your cells a fighting chance—the ability to sustain its defenses against outside interferences.  On the flip side, if our cells are not fully fortified, it takes away from the body’s ability to thrive. It weakens your immune system and increases your likelihood of chronic illness because more energy is being used to fight off free radicals and disease, rather than function at its highest capabilities.

Posted on

Pet Food for Thought

pet food

Important Update: As of June 27, 2019, the FDA updated their investigation into dog foods linked to canine heart disease, particularly among limited ingredient diet formulations. As addressed in our post, please be mindful when feeding your pet “grain free” or other specialty products. When in doubt, contact your veterinarian.

Exciting news – we have a new puppy at D2D! When Poppy first arrived on the scene, we were inundated with advice: we should feed her only raw food; we should cook her only chicken and rice; we should feed her only organic foods.  While we love Poppy, don’t dogs have good digestive systems?  The size of the U.S. pet food market is projected to climb to $30 billion in 2022 from $25 billion.  That’s almost four times what we spent on pets in the 1990s! In fact, total spending on our pets has increased every year over the past three decades, even through economic downturns.

We’ve seen a dramatic expansion of all the ways we can spend money on our pets — nowhere more so than in what we feed them.  Today, we have more pet food options than ever before.  A customer-centric pet food system delivers a range of product choices and delivery channels that make it a complex and confusing marketplace.

So what’s the consumer to do?  How do we make the right choice about what we feed Poppy?

Pets Are People

The statistics tell the story clearly.  The number of pets in America has increased significantly in the past few decades – and so has the amount of money we spend on them. Pets aren’t just family members, they’ve become a big business, too.

When it comes to food, consumers favor outward appearance over general health benefits. According to Packaged Facts and Petfood Industry, the number one priority is clean breath, perhaps to make sure we get better-smelling puppy kisses! Dog and cat owners then look for skin and coat health, with the third as joint health.  Very surprisingly, digestive health and probiotics falls to the bottom of the list.

In addition, the lines between human food and pet food sectors are blurring.  Many of the same ingredient claims made for human food are finding their way into the pet food sector – foods that are organic, grain-free, or touting unique health benefits. GMOs are even seen as a hazard by 28% of pet owners. As a result, a number of innovative and entrepreneurial players are entering the pet food market. 

An Exploding Market

The array of pet food offerings seems to have exploded.  And to add to the potential confusion, so have the number of ways pet food can be bought.  We no longer rely primarily on the pet store, or our local grocer, or even our local veterinarian.  At the top of the charts in selling pet food, according to the Pet Industry Forum: Amazon, followed by Walmart, and Chewy.com.  In an age in which convenience is king in the purchasing process, on-line sales and revamped delivery channels have opened the door to an almost infinite range of product offerings.  Where we are gaining in convenience, we are also increasing the potential for confusion.

So what is the average consumer to do in the face of all this change?  How do I know which pet foods offer what I want most for Poppy? Which company should I trust?

The big issue on making such a determination: the risk of marketing outrunning science in shaping both the pet food industry and what it offers to consumers.  Industry observers privately say we’re still in the early stages of developing solid, science-based data about some of the emerging claims being made by several players in the pet food sector.  To make informed decisions about what to feed our pets, consumers need to become more educated – and to look for providers who can back up the claims made about the value of what they offer.

What’s The Consumer To Do?

Pet food industry professionals offer a number of helpful suggestions:

Dr. Maryanne Murphy is Clinical Assistant Professor of Nutrition at the University of Tennessee College of Veterinary Medicine, DVM and PhD, DACVN, Board Certified Veterinary NutritionistTM. She also cites advice from her colleague, Lisa Freeman, from Tufts University.

Both professionals noted caution when dealing with “BEGs”:

  • “Boutiques”: Providers without the depth of resources or expertise you would want for your own food.

  • “Exotics”: Providers who tout some kind of unusual key ingredient or ingredients.

  • “Grain free”: Products that lack at least some of the protein-rich grains and oil meal that have been the foundation of animal feed rations for generations. Both the industry and government (the Food and Drug Administration, for example) are in the process of gathering the information needed to assess how a “grain-free” diet relates to animal health.  Such a diet may in time prove to be an acceptable dietary option, but until the science advances, consumers must make up their own mind about the potential risks associated with grain-free products.

Dr. Murphy has another key suggestion for becoming an informed consumer:

“If in doubt, call and ask,” Dr. Murphy advises. “Pick up the phone and ask to speak to someone who can tell you what’s behind their claims.  Ask if they have a nutritionist — veterinary or PhD in animal science — on staff.  Ask what they specifically do for quality control. Ask what kind of clinical trial data they have. How they respond to such questions will tell you a lot about how much you can trust them and their products.”

Dr. Thomas A. Wallrichs is a doctor of veterinary medicine, who for nearly three decades has practiced at the front lines of veterinary care for companion animals.  He echoes Dr. Murphy’s advice: “I tell my clients to stick with the suppliers who have proven they know what they are doing,” he says.  “That means known brand names.”

Dr. Wallrichs also points out that animal nutrition is an evolving science.  “We all have to work to stay current, and on top of things,” he observes.  “I look for proof, not claims.  I see an animal that is thriving, has a great coat and is active.  I ask the client what they feed them.  And I listen to what they say.”

The Industry Is Listening, Too

Ed Yuhas is Managing Partner, Kincannon and Reed Executive Search, and a respected pet industry observer and advisor to pet food industry executives.

“Five years ago, the pet food industry was generally regarded as three to five years behind the human food industry.  That’s just not true anymore,” he observes. “We recruit executive leaders across the food system.  The pet industry has become a great career channel.  Any stigma or idea it is some kind of second-class career path are totally gone,” he notes.

Yuhas also notes that “it’s no coincidence” that most of the largest pet food providers are owned by or part of major food companies – Nestle (Purina), Mars (Pedigree, Iams, Eukanuba, Whiskas, Sheba, Cesar), General Mills (Blue Buffalo), Cargill (Loyall), Colgate Palmolive (Hills Science Diet).

“They see and understand the parallels between the two, in all aspects of the business and especially in the responsible way to approach to the market,” he observes. Yuhas also believes it is important to note that the industry is working hard to provide exactly the kind of science the market wants.  Clinical research is a high priority, he notes.

“The big names in the business have the resources, the experience, and they are constantly building on that.  The newer players know they have to demonstrate the same commitment.  The business is too lucrative to do otherwise.  They want any bad actors out of the industry, just as much as the consumer does.” – Ed Yuhas, Kincannon and Reed Executive Search

Looking Ahead

What’s ahead for the pet food industry?  Most observers point to more growth, and even more sophistication in what is offered to consumers.

And perhaps most important, these same experts offer a common piece of critical advice when it comes to the nutrition and health of every pet: if in doubt, consult with your veterinarian.  Your vet knows your pets and their specific health situation and dietary needs.

To make the smart choices on pet food, be an informed consumer.  After all, just like Poppy, it’s your family. 

Posted on

Organic Farming & Gene Editing: Oxymoron or Tool for Sustainable Ag?

organic, veggies, vegetables

This post is written by Rebecca Mackelprang and is posted on Cornell Alliance for Science, an initiative based at Cornell University, a non-profit institution. Their mission is to promote access to scientific innovation as a means of enhancing food security, improving environmental sustainability, and raising the quality of life globally.

The original article was published at The Conversation as Organic farming with gene editing: An oxymoron or a tool for sustainable agriculture? and has been republished here with permission from Cornell Alliance for Science.

A University of California, Berkeley professor stands at the front of the room, delivering her invited talk about the potential of genetic engineering. Her audience, full of organic farming advocates, listens uneasily. She notices a man get up from his seat and move toward the front of the room. Confused, the speaker pauses mid-sentence as she watches him bend over, reach for the power cord, and unplug the projector. The room darkens and silence falls. So much for listening to the ideas of others.

Many organic advocates claim that genetically engineered crops are harmful to human health, the environment, and the farmers who work with them. Biotechnology advocates fire back that genetically engineered crops are safe, reduce insecticide use, and allow farmers in developing countries to produce enough food to feed themselves and their families.

Now, sides are being chosen about whether the new gene editing technology, CRISPR, is really just “GMO 2.0” or a helpful new tool to speed up the plant breeding process. In July, the European Union’s Court of Justice ruled that crops made with CRISPR will be classified as genetically engineered. In the United States, meanwhile, the regulatory system is drawing distinctions between genetic engineering and specific uses of genome editing.

I am a plant molecular biologist and appreciate the awesome potential of both CRISPR and genetic engineering technologies. But I don’t believe that pits me against the goals of organic agriculture. In fact, biotechnology can help meet these goals. And while rehashing the arguments about genetic engineering seems counterproductive, genome editing may draw both sides to the table for a healthy conversation. To understand why, it’s worth digging into the differences between genome editing with CRISPR and genetic engineering.

What’s the difference between genetic engineering, CRISPR and mutation breeding?

Opponents argue that CRISPR is a sneaky way to trick the public into eating genetically engineered foods. It is tempting to toss CRISPR and genetic engineering into the same bucket. But even “genetic engineering” and “CRISPR” are too broad to convey what is happening on the genetic level, so let’s look closer.

In one type of genetic engineering, a gene from an unrelated organism can be introduced into a plant’s genome. For example, much of the eggplant grown in Bangladesh incorporates a gene from a common bacterium. This gene makes a protein called Bt that is harmful to insects. By putting that gene inside the eggplant’s DNA, the plant itself becomes lethal to eggplant-eating insects and decreases the need for insecticides. Bt is safe for humans. It’s like how chocolate makes dogs sick, but doesn’t affect us.

Another type of genetic engineering can move a gene from one variety of a plant species into another variety of that same species. For example, researchers identified a gene in wild apple trees that makes them resistant to fire blight. They moved that gene into the “Gala Galaxy” apple to make it resistant to disease. However, this new apple variety has not been commercialized.

Scientists are unable to direct where in the genome a gene is inserted with traditional genetic engineering, although they use DNA sequencing to identify the location after the fact.

In contrast, CRISPR is a tool of precision.

Just like using the “find” function in a word processor to quickly jump to a word or phrase, the CRISPR molecular machinery finds a specific spot in the genome. It cuts both strands of DNA at that location. Because cut DNA is problematic for the cell, it quickly deploys a repair team to mend the break. There are two pathways for repairing the DNA. In one, which I call “CRISPR for modification,” a new gene can be inserted to link the cut ends together, like pasting a new sentence into a word processor.

In “CRISPR for mutation,” the cell’s repair team tries to glue the cut DNA strands back together again. Scientists can direct this repair team to change a few DNA units, or base pairs (A’s, T’s, C’s and G’s), at the site that was cut, creating a small DNA change called a mutation. This technique can be used to tweak the gene’s behavior inside the plant. It can also be used to silence genes inside the plant that, for example, are detrimental to plant survival, like a gene that increases susceptibility to fungal infections.

In genetic engineering, a new gene is added to a random location in a plant’s genome. CRISPR for modification also allows a new gene to be added to a plant, but targets the new gene to a specific location. CRISPR for mutation does not add new DNA. Rather, it makes a small DNA change at a precise location. Mutation breeding uses chemicals or radiation (lightning bolts) to induce several small mutations in the genomes of seeds. Resulting plants are screened for beneficial mutations resulting in desirable traits. Rebecca Mackelprang, CC BY-SA

Mutation breeding, which in my opinion is also a type of biotechnology, is already used in organic food production. In mutation breeding, radiation or chemicals are used to randomly make mutations in the DNA of hundreds or thousands of seeds which are then grown in the field. Breeders scan fields for plants with a desired trait such as disease resistance or increased yield. Thousands of new crop varieties have been created and commercialized through this process, including everything from varieties of quinoa to varieties of grapefruit. Mutation breeding is considered a traditional breeding technique, and thus is not an “excluded method” for organic farming in the United States.

CRISPR for mutation is more similar to mutation breeding than it is to genetic engineering. It creates similar end products as mutation breeding, but removes the randomness. It does not introduce new DNA. It is a controlled and predictable technique for generating helpful new plant varieties capable of resisting disease or weathering adverse environmental conditions.

Opportunity lost – learning from genetic engineering

Most commercialized genetically engineered traits confer herbicide tolerance or insect resistance in corn, soybean or cotton. Yet many other engineered crops exist. While a few are grown in the field, most sit all but forgotten in dark corners of research labs because of the prohibitive expense of passing regulatory hurdles. If the regulatory climate and public perception allow it, crops with valuable traits like these could be produced by CRISPR and become common in our soils and on our tables.

For example, my adviser at UC Berkeley developed, with colleagues, a hypoallergenic variety of wheat. Seeds for this wheat are held captive in envelopes in the basement of our building, untouched for years. A tomato that uses a sweet pepper gene to defend against a bacterial disease, eliminating the need for copper-based pesticide application, has struggled to secure funding to move forward. Carrot, cassava, lettuce, potato and more have been engineered for increased nutritional value. These varieties demonstrate the creativity and expertise of researchers in bringing beneficial new traits to life. Why, then, can’t I buy bread made with hypoallergenic wheat at the grocery store?

Loosening the grip of big agriculture

Research and development of a new genetically engineered crop costs around US$100 million at large seed companies. Clearing the regulatory hurdles laid out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, EPA and/or FDA (depending on the engineered trait) takes between five and seven years and an additional $35 million. Regulation is important and genetically engineered products should be carefully evaluated. But, the expense allows only large corporations with extensive capital to compete in this arena. The price shuts small companies, academic researchers and NGOs out of the equation. To recoup their $135 million investment in crop commercialization, companies develop products to satisfy the biggest markets of seed buyers – growers of corn, soybean, sugar beet and cotton.

The costs of research and development are far lower with CRISPR due to its precision and predictability. And early indications suggest that using CRISPR for mutation will not be subject to the same regulatory hurdles and costs in the U.S. A press release on March 28, 2018 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture says that “under its biotechnology regulations, USDA does not regulate or have any plans to regulate plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding techniques” if they are developed with approved laboratory procedures.

If the EPA and FDA follow suit with reasonable, less costly regulations, CRISPR may escape the dominant financial grasp of large seed companies. Academics, small companies and NGO researchers may see hard work and intellectual capital yield beneficial genome-edited products that are not forever relegated to the basements of research buildings.

Common ground: CRISPR for sustainability

In the six years since the genome editing capabilities of CRISPR were unlocked, academics, startups and established corporations have announced new agricultural products in the pipeline that use this technology. Some of these focus on traits for consumer health, such as low-gluten or gluten-free wheat for people with celiac disease. Others, such as non-browning mushrooms, can decrease food waste.

The lingering California drought demonstrated the importance of crop varieties that use water efficiently. Corn with greater yield under drought stress has already been made using CRISPR, and it is only a matter of time before CRISPR is used to increase drought tolerance in other crops. Powdery mildew-resistant tomatoes could save billions of dollars and eliminate spraying of fungicides. A tomato plant that flowers and makes fruit early could be used in northern latitudes with long days and shorter growing seasons, which will become more important as climate changes.

The rules are made, but is the decision final?

In 2016 and 2017, the U.S. National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) voted to exclude all genome-edited crops from organic certification.

But in my view, they should reconsider.

Some organic growers I interviewed agree. “I see circumstances under which it could be useful for short-cutting a process that for traditional breeding might take many plant generations,” says Tom Willey, an organic farmer emeritus from California. The disruption of natural ecosystems is a major challenge to agriculture, Willey told me, and while the problem cannot be wholly addressed by genome editing, it could lend an opportunity to “reach back into genomes of the wild ancestors of crop species to recapture genetic material” that has been lost through millennia of breeding for high yields.

Breeders have successfully used traditional breeding to reintroduce such diversity, but “in the light of the urgency posed by climate change, we might wisely employ CRISPR to accelerate such work,” Willey concludes.

Bill Tracy, an organic corn breeder and professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, says, “Many CRISPR-induced changes that could happen in nature could have benefits to all kinds of farmers.” But, the NOSB has already voted on the issue and the rules are unlikely to change without significant pressure. “It’s a question of what social activity could move the needle on that,” Tracy concludes.

People on all sides of biotechnology debates want to maximize human and environmental outcomes. Collaborative problem-solving by organic (and conventional) growers, specialists in sustainable agriculture, biotechnologists and policymakers will yield greater progress than individual groups acting alone and dismissing each other. The barriers to this may seem large, but they are of our own making. Hopefully, more people will gain the courage to plug the projector back in and let the conversation continue.

Rebecca Mackelprang is a postdoctoral scholar at the University of California, Berkeley. This article originally appeared on The Conversation.