What, us worry?

I have always respected other countries for opposing the importation from (mainly) the U.S. and Canada of genetically modified (GM or GMO) foodstuffs, but the strength of their resolve is getting a bit worrisome lately. Of course, it's mainly the politicians, as they're probably getting big donations to their political campaigns and/or personal accounts to push GM/GMO products onto their fellow countrymen and constituents (exactly like it was done in the U.S. and Canada).

I have a strong suspicion that lately it's due to the whole corn prices dilemma, but perhaps I'm wrong.

Here's an interesting article about a consumer choice experiment undertaken in New Zealand recently:

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/stories/282.international_study_consumers_would_buy_gm_products.html

The only "problem" with the experiment is that GM/GMO products will never be cheaper than conventional products, due to the prices charged by the biotech companies to the farmers for such things as the rights to grow their seed, the seed costs, the higher pesticide and herbicide costs, etc.

I also question the accuracy of the experiment, since the GM/GMO products were labelled “spray-free genetically modified.” What does that mean exactly? Not sprayed with diesel fuel? Not with rat poison? Not with human feces? With how GM/GMO crops are produced, a large amount (when compared to conventional and especially organic crops) of herbicides, for instance, has to be applied in order to kill off resistant weeds a.k.a. volunteer "frankenweeds," so it can't mean herbicides. And it can't mean pesticides or insecticides, as farmers have increased their use of pesticides once GM or GMO crops have become established. So these fruits were free from the spray of what? I'd like to know! The term "spray-free" might have influenced customers' decisions, as it mkes it sound harmless compared to the conventional fruit, for instance.

"Every once in a while, you can spot a couple of cattle fighting over a whole potato"

This story is both amusing and amazing:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB117971270570109153-zOC0IHWiWPWox_jaHb4rBiWVpIo_20070528.html%3f

The article basically discusses several of the problems with using corn for ethanol production instead of for livestock feed. The main problem I have with it is one of the last paragraphs: "In ethanol-producing states, some farmers have been able to mitigate high corn costs by feeding their animals dried distillers' grains, a corn mash left over from ethanol production. But in states without ethanol plants, distillers' grains aren't always readily available. Also, many farmers say the product lacks sufficient nutrients. Others say their animals don't like the taste."

For one, "dried distillers' grains" (especially when reconstituted) have a higher nutrional value than the pre-distilled grains, due to the fermentation process; second, have you ever seen a pig fed fermented grain of any type? They go NUTS over it!

Another amusing/disturbing statement within the article is regarding the price of corn: "[it] has prompted livestock groups like the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the National Chicken Council to call for an end to federal ethanol subsidies ..." Now that's a bit of a hypocritical statement, ain't it? I guess it's ok when the federal government subsidizes corn (giving away many billions of dollars of U.S. tax payers' money) for animal feed though!

Perhaps they should quit selling their now high-priced corn they produce that was originally intended to feed their livestock, or they can protect their corn subsidy money another way?

[Chinese] Food fight!

China apparently retaliates for our rejection of "some" of their imports:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK1175920070710

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070822064416.l7or1zaz&show_article=1

and ...

"I'm sorry Mr. Chinese Export Company President, but we detected large amounts of arsenic, diesel fuel, battery acid, and Agent Orange in your lastest seafood shipment to the United States. Hmmm ... I know! Let's label it organic!"

and ...

Good thing for our FDA that such things don't happen in the U.S. of A.:

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSPEK2206820070710

(Al Gore's cousin-in-law, Michael Taylor, would have been six feet under by now!)

An Onion Infographic

© Copyright 2007, Onion, Inc. All rights reserved.

Origins of Our Food

(Verbatim from a July 4, 2007 New York Times editorial)

With imports of agricultural products rising sharply and sporadic scares about their safety, Americans surely have a right to know what country their food has come from. Unfortunately, they have little chance of finding out, due to the intransigence of meat importers and grocery retailers.

Lobbyists for both groups have blocked implementation of a 2002 law that requires country-of-origin labels on fresh fruits and vegetables, red meats, seafood and peanuts. Only the seafood part of the law has been put into effect, largely because Alaskan fishermen liked some of its provisions and had a powerful champion in the Senate.

With the recent questions about Chinese seafood, those labels mean that consumers can make informed choices at the seafood counter — something they should be able to do with all of their food purchases.

As Andrew Martin reported in The Times on Monday, the Bush administration’s Agriculture Department [USDA] was hostile to the labeling from the start. That comes as no surprise given that many of its top officials had worked for a trade association representing meatpackers and ranchers that opposes labeling. The Republican-controlled Congress, with key members beholden to campaign contributions from agribusiness, twice delayed the starting date for mandatory labeling, ultimately pushing it back to September 2008.

Industry lobbyists raise a flurry of unpersuasive objections. They claim it would be too costly for American meatpackers to segregate and track imported meat, and especially difficult to label ground meat which often comes from different cows. They also claim that labeling is a disguised form of protectionism, which implies that all foreign food is suspect. But these rationales are trumped by the simple argument that consumers have a right to know the origins of what they are buying. The required record-keeping should also help in tracking any dangerous products back through the supply chain to the source of contamination.

With the Democrats now in control of Congress, it is time to put an end to the excuses and delays, and finally implement the labeling requirement — preferably without waiting until late 2008. This could be done through the mammoth farm policy bill that will be up for a vote in coming months or through an agriculture appropriations bill. If there are elements of the original law that are unnecessarily onerous and costly, these can be modified during the legislative process or during administrative rule-making to implement the law. But there should be no compromise of the basic principle that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from before popping it into their mouths.

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company