Food has been in the news recently in a big way, or rather many ways. First, the House passed the most mean-spirited legislation on record last Thursday when GOP members voted to gut SNAP, better known as food stamps.
Once part of the Farm Bill, it cuts $4 billion from the program that puts food on the tables of people working in low-paying jobs (think Wal- Mart). Since the beginning of the 2008 recession, the number of people relying on food assistance has almost doubled. Reconciliation to come.
Germans who went to the polls to reelect Angela Merkel discovered on the ballot a proposal to devote one day a week to vegetarianism; this in the land of beer and bratwurst?
Chelsea Clinton championed on Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” the Clinton Foundation’s program to conquer childhood obesity by educating parents and kids about healthy eating.
Washington residents will vote soon on a bill that would require all foods containing Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) to include that on the label. Food processors and market associations poured millions of dollars into a campaign against a similar California initiative that was narrowly defeated.
All of these reports were eclipsed by Scientific American’s September special edition on food. The issue was dedicated to articles on calories, food addiction, eating invasive species, bee pollination, etc. Most interesting, however, is a piece by David H. Freedman titled “Are Engineered Foods Evil?”
For someone (me) who’s panned Monsanto’s tactics at every opportunity, this was an eye-opener. A masterpiece of research, it quotes scientists on both sides of the issue, including those who either switched their positions or admitted they were disinclined to weigh in against the companies who produce genetically modified (GM) food after others suffered vicious attacks on their credibility.
For example, two scientists from UCLA take opposing views: Robert Goldberg, plant molecular biologist, deplores delays caused by those who dispute tests showing no health risks from GM foods, frightening consumers across the globe. David Williams, cellular biologist, cites funding, much of it from companies that sell GM seeds and heavily favors researchers who explore ways to further GM use in agriculture.
Alan McHughen, plant molecular geneticist at U.C. Riverside, seems to refute those who claim the process is unnatural. “When GM critics say that genes don’t cross the species barrier in nature, that’s just simple ignorance,” he says. “Mother Nature does it all the time and so do conventional plant breeders.”
Then there are those who support the middle ground. Gregory Jaffe, director of biotechnology at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says all crops could use more testing. “We should be doing a better job with food oversight altogether,” Jaffe argues.
David Schubert, Alzheimer’s researcher at the Salk Institute in La Jolla, says 90 percent of the scientists he talks to wrongly assume that new GM plants are safety-tested the same way new drugs are by the FDA. He says, “They absolutely aren’t and they absolutely should be.”
Supporters say we need genetic modification to feed growing populations and to counteract the effects of climate change. The claim is that GM crops require fewer pesticides. Others argue that while that may be true initially, over time they often need more, increasing costs and damaging environments.
Besides, GM foods are all about yield and profit, not taste. So how does an argument for genetically modified foods square with the burgeoning popularity of organic produce and the proliferation of farmers markets in this country?
Finally, it looks like local bread may be making a comeback. For insight on the resurgence of farming natural wheat varieties, Rebekah Denn reports in The Seattle Times the story of economic recovery around Breadlab at Washington State University Research Center in Mount Vernon. Scientists, farmers, millers and bakers are working to make locally grown wheat viable once again. In order to provide an alternative to mass-blended commodity flours and loaves, research is being done on thousands of strains of wheat testing elasticity, protein content, enzyme activity and other qualities crucial to crumbs and crusts.
Local flours don’t need stabilizers and aren’t stored in industrial warehouses that might require chemical protection. “Until recently, flavor wasn’t much of the discussion when it came to growing wheat in this country,” says Scott Margold of Breadform bakery in Edison. “Artisan bakers are learning how to draw distinct flavors from grains using fermentation and techniques,” he says. “Local grains are good for the farmer, the community and the world.”
Monsanto, eat your heart out.