Is your preference to shop for and purchase “natural” foods?  Based on some of my observations in a few trips recently to the West Coast and Texas, there are some segments of the restaurant and grocery store industries where the usage of this phrase has gotten completely out-of-hand.  Every time I hear “natural foods”, I always wonder what isn’t “natural”?  Of course, that isn’t the point of marketing, which should be to communicate succinctly…no, in the food industry one seems to need phrases that are poetic and differentiate some foods as a whole lot better, safer and healthier even when they are not!

This marketing “smoke and mirrors” creates a lot of unnecessary confusion among consumers by championing the belief that the organic/natural food system is the best way forward for feeding the world in the future.  As I have written in The Locavore’s Plight, this approach is simply not doable and denies the virtues of one of the great creations in society…the contemporary world food system.

The sound bites to describe foods as “better” than your standard food has become remarkably sophisticated.  At one restaurant in San Francisco, their website touted that their establishment served “natural, urban rustic food”.  I sort of like the phrase “urban rustic food” even though I have no idea what it means…but it sounds good!

I am guessing that urban rustic food is viewed by some as a notch better that the more “pedestrian food” (inject humor here) that is described as organic, grass-fed, free-range, local or hook and line caught (net-free caught fish seems better)!

The use of the English language to entertain and mislead folks at the grocery store or local bistro is evolving.  In San Francisco, one restaurant sources food from organic producers whose livelihood is based on a respect for nature and a sense of place.  Most folks I know respect nature, even the vast majority of farmers in the business of contemporary food production.  The “sense of place” while a pretty word phrase, still makes no sense to me… but I am guessing someone with an MFA degree (Master of Fine Arts) in Creative Writing came up with this phrase.

Another vendor to a very “hip” restaurant in San Francisco (I didn’t go, just looked at their website) conveyed that their vendors were committed to promoting and supporting a sustainable, organic county – a county in which growers and the people who rely on them recognize their mutual interdependence (I will leave the name of the county out of the blog to minimize the fan mail I get…but it is just north of San Francisco).  The phrase “mutual interdependence” is a “good one” in that it sounds “cool” but conveys little.

The last descriptor that I found that I “liked” was:  “we serve pastured meat, poultry and eggs from small farmers..these are the flavors of place”.  I was confused by the usage of pastured.  I thought animals could be kept on pasture, but was surprised to learn that there must be some way to keep meat and eggs in the pasture.  The “flavors of place” is a phrase I just give up on.  I have no idea what it means.  However, if any of you have had any medium-rare “place”, please let me know.  The word “place” must be important because it used a lot.

If you are wondering what the point of this blog is, it is to make light of the verbiage that is being used to differentiate food production practices.  As I have written before, these are production practices that differ; however, they don’t have much impact on nutrient content, healthiness or safety.

The use of the word “natural” is a good example of the “word spin” that occurs in the marketplace to make one think a particular food production practice is better than another.  The phrase “natural foods” is a widely used terms in food labeling and marketing, and, as I have discussed is remarkably vague.  There are no USDA standards that “define” natural.  And, I can’t fathom this ever being done.

Consumers in developed countries are lucky.  We have plenty of affordable food.  Most consumers in these countries never consider the complexity of the system that produces and delivers the food to their grocery store or restaurant.  We should be celebrating the robustness of this and not engaging in practices that inaccurately and unfairly differentiate foods when there is no difference.

Go ahead and eat pastured meat and eggs and natural, rustic, urban food which gives you a feeling of mutual interdependence and a flavor of place if you find value in that; don’t disparage those who choose to eat healthy food that tastes delicious and is delivered in a more traditional, economical way.

If you are a “foodie” you might be part of the local food movement that passionately advocates that eating locally sourced food is preferable to food produced by contemporary production agriculture.  Much has been written about the pros and cons on this subject.

The local food movement championed by “locavores” enjoys passionate support by some in the media, chefs at “foodie” restaurants, and more than a few elected officials.  The realities I believe about the local food movement are dramatically divergent from the locavores’ perspective.

There was an article, The Locavore’s Dilemma:  Why Pineapples Shouldn’t Be Grown in North Dakota, that was recently posted on Library of Economics and Liberty that informatively and entertainingly discussed some of misleading claims made by supporters of locally produced food.  The article was written by Drs. Jayson Lusk and Bailey Norwood, two Ag Econ professors at Oklahoma State University.

Take a look…it is a terrific “read”!

There is some important background about market share and a definition of “local foods” when you read the post on Library of Economics and Liberty …local food markets are a small sliver of total agriculture sales in the United States.  Some other important points are:

• Local foods typically refers to foods produced near their point of consumption, but there is no consensus as to what distances constitute “local”.

• Direct-to-consumer marketing (i.e., of local foods) amounted to $1.2 billion in current dollar sales in 2007, according to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, compared with $551 million in 1997.

• Direct-to-consumer sales accounted for 0.4 percent of total agricultural sales in 2007, up from 0.3 percent in 1997.

• The number of farmers’ markets rose to 5,274 in 2009, up from 2,756 in 1998 and 1,755 in 1994, according to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.

So, there you have it.

For the “record”, I embrace the reality that local food translates to fresher food. And, I am supportive of helping to support local farmers.  In fact, I grew up on a family farm in Illinois.  The current generation of locavores would really embrace our family farm.  We had a huge production “garden”, planted sweet corn with a field corn planter (8-row, I might add), sold strawberries at the local grocery story, harvested tomatoes by the bushel basket, and engaged in a lot of very hard work!

Many in the locavore “crowd” create “confusion” among consumers by championing the belief that their food system philosophy is the best way forward for feeding the world in the future.  Their approach is simply not doable and denies the virtues of one of the great creations in society…the contemporary world food system.

As I have written in previous blogs posted on Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology, a “firestorm” has erupted in response to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack’s idea of calling for producers of GM, non-GM and organic crops to “coexist”.  This issue flared up after USDA issued its environmental impact statement on Roundup Ready alfalfa in December, 2010 when Mr.  Vilsack convened a “stakeholder” meeting (December 20) of proponents and opponents of the biotechnology to “talk it out”.

Representative Colin Peterson (D-MN), the past Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, recently weighed in about the “firestorm” in the January 5 issue of the Agri-Pulse Newsletter.

Asked about Sec. Tom Vilsack’s push to hold meetings on coexistence, Peterson says that, “in general I think that if you can get people to talk together, you’re going to be better off. Having said that, some of these folks who are against biotech are anything but reasonable. It may be like trying to deal with Iran. They have an agenda that’s not based on science. It’s based on emotions and disinformation and it’s probably used to raise money for them and so forth. So dealing with those kinds of people, I’m not sure is helpful and productive.”

…and former Agriculture Secretary John Block (he was in office from 1981 to 1986) shared his perspectives about “coexistence” in his January 6, 2011  radio show “Reports from Washington”.  Here is the transcript of the report (to listen to Mr. Block’s comments about GE Crops Under Attack, please click here):

“GE Crops Under Attack”

Hello everybody out there in farm country.

And now for today’s commentary—

I remember as a boy hoeing weeds in our corn fields and pulling weeds in the bean fields. I recall the plant damage that our corn suffered from root worms and corn bore. Along came biotechnology and genetically engineered seeds. The weeds are gone and the corn stands straight and strong.

We have been successfully utilizing this remarkable technology to increase our farming efficiency and productivity for nearly 20 years. We have 60 million acres of GE corn and soybeans in the U.S. today. Countries all over the world are ramping up their use of genetic engineering to increase yield.

Environmental groups can’t stand to see modern agriculture prosper. They would like for us to farm as we did when I was a boy.

Two law suits threaten our industry – beets and alfalfa, and that’s just the beginning. The Center for Food Safety sued USDA back in 2006 to stop the distribution of a Round Up Ready alfalfa. After all these years with no hint of harm from GE crops, no danger to humans or livestock, the USDA appears to be unwilling to issue a stamp of approval for Round Up Ready Alfalfa. This nuisance litigation has USDA frozen in place. Secretary Vilsack seems to be trying to pacify the anti-biotech activist crowd by suggesting that perhaps there could be a minimum planting distance between GE alfalfa and organic alfalfa.

This is the “camel’s nose under the tent.” Can you just imagine all of the tiny organic gardens all over the country that could threaten all of our GE crops? Not just alfalfa or sugar beets but corn, soy bean, cotton, on and on. The regulatory result could be devastating.

The anti-biotech crowd refuses to acknowledge the scientifically proven safety of biotech crops. They don’t care. They don’t care if our food output could be cut by 1/3 or more. They ignore the inevitable surge in the cost of food and global starvation that could occur.

Write, call, E-mail your Congressmen and your State Ag Commissioner, unless you want to go back to farming as I did as a boy.

In closing, I would encourage you to access my website which archives my radio commentaries dating back 10 years and will go back 20 years when complete. Check on what I said back then. Go to www.johnblockreports.com.

***

On December 7, 2010, Dr. Pamela Ronald, a distinguished plant scientist at the University of California – Davis,  appeared as guest expert on the nationally-syndicated “Dr. Oz Show” to discuss the benefits of GMOs.  I had been contacted by the producer of the show to participate, however, I could not because of scheduling issues (they asked at the “last minute”).

My initial thought about the show was that it provided a great opportunity to present the facts about the efficacy and safety of GMOs to a large audience.  Unfortunately, what “played out” was way past disappointing.  There was unbelievable bias in how the segment was edited to produce the “final” version that overshadowed the sound scientific facts about GMOs.  I found it remarkable that much of what Dr. Ronald presented during the filming of the segment was edited “out” of the final version of the show!

As readers of  Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology appreciate, I am strong believe that science journalism should being practiced in an accurate and non-biased manner.  Unfortunately, there are many, many examples of inaccurate and deceptive scientific reporting.  The GMO segment on the Dr. Oz Show is a good example of how journalistic bias is conducted.  It is reprehensible to me that sound science was ignored and that the virtues of the scientific method were attacked on the Dr. Oz Show!

After watching the segment, and learning about what really occurred during the filming of the segment, I was compelled to write to the producer of the show to convey my disappointment in how the segment was produced.

The letter I e-mailed to the producer of the show, Rosalyn Menon, is presented below.  Dr. Ronald has already written a provocative blog on Tomorrow’s Table about her experience of appearing on the Dr. Oz Show.  It is a compelling read.

If you wish to watch the segment that was aired on the Dr. Oz Show, click here.Ms. Rosalyn Menon
Producer
The Dr. Oz Show
30 Rockefeller Plaza – 43rd floor
New York, NY  10112

Hi Rosalyn:

As you recall, you had invited me to participate on the Dr. Oz Show to speak about GMOs, and the scientific evidence that supports their efficacy and safety.  Because of prior schedule commitments, I was not able to participate.

The purpose of my letter is to comment on the Dr. Oz Show episode that aired December 7, 2010 (Dr. Oz Investigates: Genetically Modified Food).   I value the effort made by the show’s producers to educate the audience on this important topic; however, I was stunned at the amount of misinformation that was included in the segment.

By allowing guests Jeffrey Smith and Dr. Michael Hanson to deceptively raise alarm among your audience about concerns that have been thoroughly addressed by the international scientific community, you have done a disservice to your audience.  The ultimate scientific authorities recognized in this country, such as the National Research Council of the National Academies[i] and the American Dietetic Association[ii], have concluded that foods with biotech-derived ingredients pose no more risk to people than any other foods (including organic).

The National Research Council also has documented that, in addition to their safety, biotech crops contribute positively to farm sustainability in the United States, due to their environmental benefits and economic benefits to farmers.[iii] Moreover, farmers have been using biotech seeds safely and effectively for nearly fifteen years, and continue to increase adoption of the technology globally each year.

Mr. Smith, who Dr. Ronald correctly pointed out is not a scientist by any stretch, boasts dubious credentials and books that are self-published, because the pseudo-science contents are so specious that no respectable publisher would attempt to publish them.  Credentialed scientists who teach at top agricultural institutions internationally, such as Bruce Chassy, Ph. D. (University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign) and David Tribe, Ph.D. (University of Melbourne) have debunked the 65 unsubstantiated claims Mr. Smith makes about the health and safety of biotech foods in his book, Genetic Roulette, on their website http://academicsreview.org.

While it is commendable that you included a guest such as Dr. Pamela Ronald, the time allotted to Dr. Ronald fell short in allowing her to fully explain her position as representative of the scientific consensus on this topic.  As a formally trained scientist and physician, it is disappointing that the show’s host, Dr. Oz, seemed skeptical and biased against the opinions of Dr. Ronald, who, in addition to being a respected scientist and academic, is a mother and the wife of an organic farmer—a story she tells with her husband in her book, Tomorrow’s Table.

One particular issue that was presented in a misleading manner in this episode was labeling of foods with biotech-derived ingredients.  Mr. Smith and Dr. Hanson clearly support a mandatory labeling system, which would be a stark contrast to the current science-based policy of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)[iv].  Advocates of mandatory labeling often demand that consumers have a right-to-know and a right-to-choose, and indeed they do.  A mandatory label would imply a difference where no material difference exists.  A voluntary labeling system provides consumers with exactly the same information and choice as would an FDA-mandated label.

Unfortunately, the undertone of this segment was that the American people are the victim of some sinister plot by the conventional agriculture industry (and the scientific community) to feed them unsafe and unhealthy food, and that niche market food products, such as organic or “non-GMO verified” labeled foods are somehow safer or healthier.  However, nothing could be further from the truth.  The men and women who farm in America as well as agricultural/food scientists involved in developing new technologies to feed the growing World’s population care about the safety of food and food products sold to consumers (I know because I grew up on a farm in Illinois).  To imply otherwise, simply to frighten people into purchasing alternative products that are no safer or more nutritious, is simply irresponsible.

Should there be future episodes on this topic, I urge Dr. Oz and the show’s producers to be more mindful about presenting “all” sides of the “story”.  As you appreciate, it is important to present credible science-based information to the audience in a fair and balanced manner, so that viewers can make informed decisions, and form opinions based on facts, not fear.

Sincerely,

Terry D. Etherton, Ph.D.

[ii] J.Am.Diet Assoc. 2006; 106:285-293.

[iii] See http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12804; Impact of Genetically Engineered Crops on Farm Sustainability in the United States, National Academies Press (2010), wherein the National Research Council of the National Academies concluded that “…crops with traits that provide resistance to some herbicides and to specific insect pests have benefited adopting farmers by reducing crop losses to insect damage, by increasing flexibility in time management, and by facilitating the use of more environmentally friendly pesticides and tillage practices.”

[iv] The FDA’s policy is that food labels should indicate any chemical, compositional, or nutritional characteristics of foods when they differ from their conventional counterparts, and should not be based on the processes by which the product  or the product’s ingredients were produced.

First published on the Blog American Thinker on September 18,2010

Ever-Green-View My 1326-ET

News media has a tendency to portray certain aspects of agricultural production either positively or negatively. Doug Powell, an associate professor of food safety at Kansas State University co-authored a paper on “Coverage of organic agriculture in North American newspapers: Media – linking food safety, the environment, human health and organic agriculture,” just published in the British Food Journal.

Powell examined how organic food production is portrayed in the media. The paper is based on a study Powell conducted from 1999-2004 with two colleagues at the University of Guelph in Canada, Stacey Cahill and Katija Morley. Cahill was one of Powell’s students at the time. The team explored how topics of organic food and agriculture were discussed in five North American newspapers. Using the content analysis technique, the 618 articles collected were analyzed for topic, tone and theme regarding food safety, environmental concerns and human health.

The authors concluded that articles about organic production in the selected time period were seldom negative. Organic agriculture was often portrayed in the media as an alternative to allegedly unsafe and environmentally damaging modern agriculture practices. That means organic was being defined by what it isn’t, rather than what it is, noted the authors.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has repeatedly stated that the organic standard is a verification of production methods and not a food safety claim, says Powell. “Food safety was the least important in the media discussion of organic agriculture,” he says.”  The paper reported that 50% of food safety-themed statements in news articles were positive with respect to organic.

People have many choices on the type of foods they want to purchase based on many diverse production systems. USDA has measures in place to ensure that food produced from these various systems is safe to eat. There are challenges and benefits with any production system, and the media should be presenting a balanced view about this topic to readers.

Proponents of organic foods have touted many health, nutrition and safety benefits associated with the consumption of these foods.  However, credible science does not support the health, nutrition or safety claims made by the organic food industry (see Science Behind Reported Benefits of Organic Milk).  As might be expected, this has been vigorously disputed by advocates of organic food.  This is not a surprise given that deceptive use of marketing and health claims has been a core component of some campaigns to grow market share in the organic food sector.  Thus, some consumers are purchasing organic food on the belief that they are healthier than conventionally produced food.

An important reality is that the organic food system is one food production practice. If consumers elect to purchase this food, which is typically more expensive, so be it.  However, the marketing campaigns commonly used to market organic foods are to malign science and raise questions about nutrient content, health benefits and safety of conventionally produced food.  To date, these campaigns have not been based on sound science demonstrating that there are nutrition and health benefits associated with the consumption of organic foods that extend beyond those found in conventionally produced food.  In essence, there has been an element of “smoke and mirrors” used in these marketing efforts.

A recently published systematic review provides further evidence that there is no basis for the claims that consuming organic food is associated with any health benefits.  An extensive review of the scientific literature published in the July 2010 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concludes that “evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that result from consumption of organically produced foodstuffs”; see: Nutrition-Related Health Effects of Organic Foods – A Systematic Review.

As some context, the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) is viewed by many nutritional scientists as the foremost clinical nutrition journal in the World.  My point?  It is a highly reputable journal that publishes the very best science.

The authors of the AJCN paper reviewed a total of 98,727 papers that were published in the scientific literature, world-wide, to identify quality papers that were appropriate for analysis.  Only 12 papers met the “quality standards” for inclusion in the analysis.  Some could argue that this is a not a lot of data, however, rigorous standards were used to assess publication quality.  The paucity of data is surprising given the interest from the public about the question of whether there are health benefits associated with the consumption of organic food.  This also reaffirms the reality that the health claims made by some in the organic food sector are being made in a manner that is not based on sound science.

Biotech Crops Help Reduce Agriculture’s Pesticide Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
PG Economics Research Summary (The UK)
December 7, 2009

In light of ongoing debates on global food security, agricultural sustainability and climate change, it is important to recognize the benefits biotechnology brings to world agricultural production.

According to several research summaries released by PG Economics in the UK, those impacts are significant.

Biotech crops have contributed to significantly reducing the release of greenhouse gas emissions from agricultural practices. In 2007, this was equivalent to removing 14.2 billion kg of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or removing nearly 6.3 million cars from the road for one year (see Table below).

The greenhouse gas emission reductions are derived from two principle sources: reduced fuel use from less-frequent herbicide or insecticide applications and reduced energy usage in soil cultivation from the use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems.

From 1996 to 2007, pesticide spraying was reduced by 359 million kg, which is equivalent to 125% of the annual volume of pesticide active ingredient applied to arable crops in the European Union.

The fuel savings associated with making fewer spray runs (relative to conventional crops) and the switch to conservation, reduced-till and no-till farming systems have resulted in permanent savings in carbon dioxide emissions. In 2007, this amounted to about 1.144 billion kg (attributable to reduced fuel use of 416 million liters).

From 1996 to 2007, the cumulative permanent reduction from fuel use was estimated at 7.09 billion kg of carbon dioxide (arising from reduced fuel use of 2.578 billion liters).

The use of no-till and reduced-till farming systems has increased significantly with the adoption of herbicide-tolerant biotech crops because the technology has improved growers’ ability to control competing weeds, which reduces reliance on soil cultivation and seed-bed preparation as means for getting good levels of weed control.

As a result, tractor fuel use for tillage has dropped, soil quality has been enhanced and levels of soil erosion have been cut. In turn, more carbon remains in the soil, leading to lower greenhouse gas emissions.

Based on savings arising from the rapid adoption of no-till and reduced-till farming systems in North and South America, an estimated extra 3.57 billion kg of soil carbon were sequestered in 2007 (equivalent to 13.103 billion kg of carbon dioxide that have not been released into the atmosphere).

Cumulatively, the amount of carbon sequestered is probably higher due to year-over-year benefits to soil quality. However, due to the lack of data on the crop area in continuous no-till systems, PG Economics said it is not possible to confidently estimate cumulative soil sequestration gains.

Herbicide-tolerant biotech soybeans have also facilitated the adoption of no-till production systems, which shorten the production cycle.

This advantage enables many farmers in South America to plant a crop of soybeans immediately after a wheat crop in the same growing season. This second crop, additional to traditional soybean production, added 67.5 million metric tons to soybean production in Argentina and Paraguay between 1996 and 2007.

For more information visit PG Economics.

HALIFAX, Nova Scotia, PORTLAND, Ore., GOTHENBURG, Sweden, November 23, 2009 – Popular thinking about how to improve food systems for the better often misses the point, according to the results of a three-year global study of salmon production systems. Rather than pushing for organic or land-based production, or worrying about simple metrics such as “food miles,” the study finds that the world can achieve greater environmental benefits by focusing on improvements to key aspects of production and distribution.

For example, what farmed salmon are fed, how wild salmon are caught and the choice to buy frozen over fresh matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed when considering global scale environmental impacts such as climate change, ozone depletion, loss of critical habitat, and ocean acidification.

The study is the world’s first comprehensive global-scale look at a major food commodity from a full life cycle perspective, and the researchers examined everything — how salmon are caught in the wild, what they’re fed when farmed, how they’re transported, how they’re consumed, and how all of this contributes to both environmental degradation and socioeconomic benefits.

The researchers behind the study sought to understand how the world can develop truly sustainable food systems through the lens of understanding the complexities associated with wild and farmed salmon production, processing and distribution. They found that decision-making for food must learn to fully account for the life cycle socioeconomic and environmental costs of food production. How we weight the importance of such impacts is ultimately subjective and in the realm of policy and culture, but using a comprehensive approach provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and the world must learn to comprehend the full costs of it in order to design reliable, resilient food systems to feed a world population that’s forecast to grow to 9 billion in less than 40 years.

The researchers chose salmon as their focus as it exemplifies important characteristics of modern food systems, yet offers unique opportunities for comparison. It is available around the world at any time and in any location, regardless of season or local ecosystem, it is available in numerous product forms, and it is distributed using a variety of transport modes. Unlike many other food systems, however, it is available from both wild sources and a range of farmed production systems.

While it isn’t easy to balance people, profit and planet, the world must do much better. Food production, in aggregate, is the single largest source of environmental degradation globally. Impacts vary dramatically depending on what, where and how food is produced. For example, early results of the study found that growing salmon in land-based farms can increase total greenhouse gas emissions ten-fold over conventional farming depending on how and where the farming is conducted. Similarly, while organic farming of many crops offers benefits over conventional production, organic salmon production gives rise to impacts very similar to conventional farming due to the use of resource intensive fish meals and oils. Beyond the farm, it’s important to also consider the total impact of food preparation. Driving to the store alone and then cooking alone at home has a big environmental impact. Going out to dinner more, or just eating more frequently with friends and family at home, has huge benefit.

For concerned consumers, it’s important to think about how food was produced and transported — not just where it was produced — when making food choices.

Initial Findings from the Study (More Due with the Final Report in 2010):

• Fish should swim, not fly. Air-freighting salmon, and any food, results in substantial increases in environmental impacts. If more frozen food were consumed, more container ships would be used to ship food. Container ships are by far the most efficient and carbon-friendly way to transport food. Globally, the majority of salmon fillets are currently consumed fresh and never frozen. In fish-loving Japan, which gets much of its fish by air, switching to 75 percent frozen salmon would have more benefit than all of Europe eating locally farmed salmon.
• The choice to buy frozen matters more than organic vs. conventional or wild vs. farmed.
• A full life cycle assessment approach to research provides a more nuanced process for informed decision-making. Even food has a lifecycle, and we must comprehend the full impact to make meaningful improvements to food systems. Tradeoffs may be inevitable.
• Contrary to what is widely perceived, the vast majority of broad-scale resource use and environmental impacts (energy inputs, GHG emissions, etc) from conventional salmon farming result from the feeds used to produce them. What happens at or around a farm site may be important for local ecological reasons but contributes very little to global scale concerns such as global warming.
• Across the globe, what is used to feed salmon and the amounts of feeds used vary widely. As a result, impacts are very different. Norwegian salmon farming resulted in generally lower overall impacts while farmed salmon production in the UK resulted in the greatest impacts.
• Reducing the amount of animal-derived inputs to feeds (e.g. fish meals and oils along with livestock derived meals) in favor of plant-based feed inputs can markedly reduce environmental impacts.
• Growing organic salmon using fish meals and oils from very resource intensive fisheries results in impacts very similar to conventional farmed salmon production.
• If not planned carefully, technological fixes aimed at addressing local environmental challenges associated with conventional salmon farming can result in substantial increases in global-scale environmental impacts. In general, salmon fisheries result in relatively low global-scale environmental impacts. However, substantial differences exist between how salmon are caught. Catching salmon in large nets as they school together has one tenth the impact of catching them in small numbers using baited hooks and lures.

Across salmon production systems — and all food systems — the world is often swimming against the tide. Instead of working with nature, people work against it, chasing fish in the open ocean with big diesel engines or substituting energy demanding pumping and water treatment for free ecosystem services in salmon farming. We can and must do better than this and start to swim with the tide.

More information on this study and related publications is available at www.ecotrust.org/lca. The most recent published paper from the study can be seen in the journal Environmental Science & Technology: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es9010114.

Because of my commitment to defend science, scientists, and technological innovation in agriculture, I encounter folks and groups on the “other side” who use all sorts of interesting — even bizarre, and dysfunctional — tactics to scare consumers about science, food safety, and the need for technological innovation in agriculture.

Their objective?

To get consumers to think something is unsafe about foods produced by biotechnology … that they are unhealthy or even dangerous. And, oh yeah, to promote a sense of urgency to “encourage” consumers to buy other versions of the same product sold with labels such as natural, farm-fresh, no added hormones, or organic, etc. The obvious intent is to infer that these foods are better for you!

The other objective is to get consumers to pay a whole lot more. Great marketing scheme! Especially, when there are no discernible differences in nutrient content or wholesomeness.

As readers of Terry Etherton Blog on Biotechnology and other science-based information sources know, organic food production practices are NOT the answer to the question: How are we going to feed a growing world population?

I appreciate that farmers who wish to produce food using the organic standards have every right to do this. Likewise, consumers who wish to buy these products should be able to do so. This is the foundation of a democratic marketplace … if you produce something, and someone buys it, you have created the market.

However, the marketing approaches used to promote these products are a problem. I have written extensively in my Blogs about the deceptive and misleading attacks on safety of milk from cows treated with rbST; plants and plant-derived foodstuffs produced using the tools of genetic engineering; and other products produced using the tools of modern biotechnology (drugs, cloned animals, diagnostic tools, etc.).

A standard strategic response by the Luddites is to attack whatever I write about or present. Nothing new; this has been going on for a long time.

The attacks come in different ways. They write all sorts of letters, fill up their Web sites with trash, and spew out blogs. A keystone of their attacks is that facts (based on sound science) are not important. It is a lot easier to make it up than spend time finding facts to support their argument.

These authors often present what they call “science-based evidence,” “replicated research,” and the like to support their claims. The messages are very misleading. Upon closer inspection, it turns out that either the “research” does not exist or has been done in a such a biased and poor manner that nothing meaningful can be concluded from it — at least not to scientists working at reputable universities, nonprofits, and companies.

To make matters worse, many in the scientific community are missing the larger implications of all this: A large percentage of the public cannot, or do not, want to differentiate good science from bad. They just make decisions and move on.

Studies have consistently shown that the more consumers know about technology, the more they support it. A long-standing challenge has been how to deliver scientific education programs to the U.S. population in an exciting and informative manner that results in learning. It is an enormous challenge.

Especially, when it is easier to scare individuals than educate them.

An example of slander

The College of Agricultural Sciences at Penn State recently put on some educational programs to present the facts about different production practices used in animal agriculture. A component of these programs was to compare different production and husbandry practices, including comparing organic versus conventional farming.

A long story made short: I received a letter from some groups expressing their outrage over these programs. Interestingly, they took great exception to the programs we “delivered” — however, we received the letter before the programs were even presented…the groups were responding to the press release!

I will share one excerpt from that letter to illustrate my point:

“…As a dairy scientist, I find Penn State’s treatment of organic dairy management unobjective, unscientific, unprofessional and deleterious to many livestock farmers in Pennsylvania who are making extra efforts to farm well. Replicated research shows that there are nutritional benefits in organic milk that are beneficial to human health…”

These two sentences illustrate how facts are repeatedly skewed by the opponents of biotechnology. In reality, the programs were nothing like the above blather about being “unprofessional and deleterious.”

At the same time, the inference here is that if you don’t farm using organic production practices, you are not farming well. This is absolute nonsense. Amazing! This author is actually a dairy farmer!

Further nonsense is the statement that “replicated” research shows nutritional benefits. There is no credible evidence in support of these assertions. This fallacy is well illustrated by a blog I posted on July 27, 2008 “Scientist Debunks Myth of Organic Nutritional Superiority.”

The fact is there are countless farmers using conventional production practices, and biotechnology, who farm well and produce safe and wholesome food. And this food is compositionally the same as that labeled organic.

Most unfortunate of all is this: The ongoing smoke and mirrors debate and continuous fretting over the U.S. food system distracts all of us from confronting and solving far more serious and pressing issues.