I understand the human enthusiasm for technology, for fast cars and laptops and high-rise buildings and anti-anxiety drugs, and foods that can sit on grocery shelves for years without going bad.  It’s shiny and exciting and convenient. And we all use these or other modern tools, including me.

But when I think about technology, I also think about Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times, caught up in the gears, swept up by giant metal wheels then dumped out some other end. I think of technologies in which it’s not the people who are in charge, but the machines.

Genetically engineered foods have the potential to be like that. We create them by taking a piece of genetic material from one species and splicing it into another, to confer desirable characteristics from the donor species onto the recipient. So a cold-water gene from a fish was crafted into a tomato, years ago, and there have been many such experiments since. But once we engineer a food species, there’s a high probability we lose control.  Genetically engineered canola seeds scatter on the wind and mix with conventional (or even chemical-free organic) canola. Genetically fancy fish or pigs could mate with the traditional kind. Pretty soon it’s not us in charge, but the technology.

There’s another way in which genetically engineered foods take control away from most of us. Whether or not you believe such high-tech foods are superior to the regular kind (and critics say there’s little evidence of upside to GE foods, and much evidence of potential downside), genetically tweaked foods have the consequence of controlling ownership and power in fewer hands. That’s because large biotechnology enterprises seek, and are granted, patents over these novel plants or animals, plus over the offspring of those species.  That means most of us are no longer in charge of our food. Someone else is.

I’ve been thinking about the loss of control that can come with technology after hearing of the probable demise of the genetically engineered pig. It’s a win for opponents of genetic engineering (which is also known by supporters under the gentler term ‘genetic modification.’) The so-called EnviroPig, as the genetically tweaked animal is called, has lost its major funding source and may never come to market, according to articles in the Globe and Mail[i], and from the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network[ii].  Promoted by a team at the University of Guelph, the EnviroPig was designed to produce manure containing less phosphorus than that of normal pigs, a result of the addition of a piece of mouse DNA plus genes from e. coli bacteria that altered the pigs’ digestive systems. Less phosphorus in livestock manure would mean less pollution from the many pigs held in factory farms. But according to media reports this week, the industry association Ontario Pork says it is redirecting its funding of the EnviroPig to alternative research projects.  This while the pig project is still awaiting government approval in Canada and the United States for development and commercialization.

Supporters of EnviroPig say they’ll keep looking for other funding sources. But opponents are pleased that this controversial initiative may be off the table for now.

Meanwhile, I’ve got a better idea than genetically engineering pigs for less phosphorus. It’s true that livestock in Canada and elsewhere often produce more manure than can serve as useful fertilizer. The waste can then pollute water and soil – and that waste contains phosphorus along with nitrogen and other chemicals including antibiotics and further pharmaceuticals fed to the animals. Excess manure also releases large amounts of greenhouse gases and other toxins.  The better idea is this — and it’s not only mine but that of a growing number of health and environmental experts around the world.  Let’s eat less meat. Let’s cut down on our intake of animal products to moderate levels, so we can raise animals naturally and within the capacity of local ecosystems to feed them and to absorb their waste.  I discuss this in my upcoming book High Steaks: Why and How to Eat Less Meat, which will be released by New Society Publishers later this year.[iii] I welcome your comments.

---

[i] W. Leung, University of Guelph left foraging for Enviropig funding. Globe and Mail. April 2, 2012. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/university-of-guelph-left-foraging-for-enviropig-funding/article2390075/

[ii] We Stopped the GM Pig. Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/Enviropig. April, 2012.

[iii] http://www.newsociety.com/Books/H/High-Steaks

There’s a red herring in the discussion about whether organic foods are better than so-called conventional ones raised in industrial operations.   That red herring, probably fished up by a public relations department in industrial agriculture, is the debate over whether organic food contains more nutrients than conventional food.   Once again, last week, a columnist for the Vancouver Sun suggested that organic food is just a scam.  After all, he said: “Studies have consistently shown that organic food has the same nutritional content as the cheaper varieties.”

The problem is, that’s irrelevant.  No-one I know ever claimed that organic food has more vitamins or minerals in it.  What organic food does have is fewer  pesticides,  antibiotics in the case of animal-source foods, and other potentially harmful chemicals.  So what organic food offers is less of the bad stuff.  It’s pretty straightforward.  But that fact has trouble getting traction because of the dominance of the red herring in the discussion — the constant repetition of that empty phrase that organic food has equivalent nutrient content.

The harmful effects are well-established of the chemicals used in conventional farming.  For example, many of the pesticides are organophosphates that directly interfere with humans’ and animals’ brain neurotransmitter systems.  Get enough of these pesticides in your system, and you won’t be able to function normally and healthfully.

On top of all that was the release  in October 2011 by the U.S.-based Rodale Institute for agricultural research of the results of their 30-year side-by-side study on organic versus conventional farming methods.  The study showed that organic farming is superior to the chemical kind.  After an initial period of transition from conventional to organic farming, producers found that organic methods produced as much food, and more in drought conditions (of which more are predicted in coming years), that organic farming used less energy and that it was often more profitable. (http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/fst30years)

If we’re going to compare organic to conventional, let’s ask the right questions.  For example, if our question is ‘Which one is cheaper?’ then the answer will be conventional.  But where our health and communities are at stake, we might want to consider alternative points of view.

Once again there has been an E. coli outbreak, this time across the Atlantic.   ‘E. Coli Death Toll Grows in Europe,’ says the New York Times of May 31, 2011.   Hundreds of Europeans have suffered from diarrhea, cramps and other symptoms, and the death count has climbed to 13.  Most sufferers seem to have become ill from eating vegetables, and several species have been pulled from grocery shelves in a number of countries.

When incidents like this occur, too often vegetables are considered the problem.  Having first read about this on the front page of the International Herald Tribune, I therefore wrote this letter to the editor there:

In reference to your May 30 article on the unfortunate E. coli outbreak in Germany, it is important to realize that vegetables are not to blame.  E. coli is a product of the mammalian gut.  In most such contamination cases the bacterial source is livestock manure, mountains of which emanate from today’s voluminous industrial production of poultry, pigs, and cattle.  While small amounts of organic manure are good fertilizer, there is now so much animal waste on the planet that it is routinely dumped in excess on plant crops.  The solution is not to stop eating vegetables, but for large-sale meat consumers to cut back their intake of animal products to moderate levels, which would allow such foods to be made sustainably, and incidentally compassionately.   The science demonstrates that the amounts of meat now eaten by the average European, American, Canadian, Australian, and some others are impossible to produce within the carrying capacity of the planet.  The results are significant contributions to climate change, pollution of water supplies, loss of rainforest and undermining of biodiversity, and other environmental crises.  There is nothing wrong with livestock, and nothing wrong with meat — in small amounts.  Eating less meat is a step toward addressing the problem.

I’ll let you know if they print it, and I welcome your comments.