Organic crops vs. GMOs

ttp://www.npr.org/2011/03/01/134162035/a-growing-debate-how-to-define-organic-food?ft=1&f=1007

A Growing Debate: How to Define ‘Organic Food’

By: Dan Charles

An article from NPR

March 1, 2011

Summary

This article discusses the issue of GMO crops and the conflict caused because of them. The Department of Agriculture declared it legal for farmers in America to plant genetically engineered alfalfa this past February. Alfalfa is commonly used as feed for horses and dairy cows. The USDA’s decision was widely opposed, especially by organic food producers. At a Horizon Organic farm in eastern Maryland, the cows graze on pasture fields during the summer months. However, during the winter the cows have to eat a mixture of soybeans, alfalfa, silage, corn, clover and triticale grass because field grass doesn’t grow. In the corn, there is a little bit of something genetically engineered, and a lot of disagreements have been caused by this. The cross-pollination between organic and modified corn fed to the livestock is unavoidable, though.

In America, the majority of corn is genetically modified, and because corn is a cross-pollinator, organic corn often winds up with genes from GE corn, thanks to windblown pollen. This means that almost always, .5 to 2 percent of organic corn grown in the U.S. contains GMOs.

Regulations from the T require organic farmers to use organic farming methods on their crops, which are never allowed to be GMOs. So, even if a little bit of genetically engineered genes blow onto a crop, it can still be considered organic.

However, the public response to this isn’t so positive. Like Ronnie Cummins, from the Organic Consumers Association says, organic farmers need to do the right thing. If they’re not willing to sue the people who pollute their organic crops, then the public isn’t going to stand up for them. Other anti-biotech activists feel the same way. Groups against GMOs are now focusing on alfalfa, the GE crop most recently approved by the government.

The Organic Trade Association’s executive director even said that if “pollen from GMO alfalfa fertilizes alfalfa in organic hay fields, you can’t … sell it as organic.” That statement is hard to believe, because if it were true, meaning that organic crops are no longer organic if they are cross-pollinated, there would be barely any organic food left in the U.S.

Because of all the anti-GMO campaigns going on, people are starting to question whether or not to trust organic food. A lot of consumers insist on having no contamination in organic crops. In fact, according to a survey stated in the article, 77 percent of organic consumers would refuse to buy organic food if it was found to contain GMOs. That’s one of the primary concerns in the organic industry today-how consumers view their products. Even though only one-tenth of 1 percent of animal feed may be contaminated, people are still unsure of whether or not it’s safe to call it organic.

In conclusion, there have been a lot of arguments and disputes lately between the organic and GMO industries.

Opinion/Reflection

I was personally shocked about all the fighting going on between the organic and GMO industries. In fact, before we studied this topic in science, I was completely unaware that it was going on.

This article relates to science class because we have been discussing for a while exactly what GMOs are, and the arguments going on between organic and GMO farmers. I felt this article went along with that topic perfectly.

I think that both sides have a ton of support, so this dispute could go on for many years. In fact, I honestly believe it might, considering how popular GE crops are becoming despite how much they affect organic crops.

I feel that genetically engineering crops is pretty neat, because it can help improve plants and animals in some way. However, I don’t think it’s right that the GE crops can contaminate organic crops. Organic farmers need to make a living too, and it’s just not fair if GMO farmers can simply come along, plant their crops, and not have to worry what nearby organic fields they’re polluting. Buffer zones need to be between the two fields, or some other solution needs to be reached.

This whole argument is getting to a point now where I feel it needs to be resolved. I think that GMO crops should be allowed, but they must have restrictions, like not being planted so close to organic crops (that they could contaminate).

Ask Questions

1) Which side are you on? Organic farmers or GMO farmers?

2) Do you think a middle ground can be reached between the opposing forces? If so, what?

3) Do you think it’s logical for people who eat organic food to stop buying organic crops if they contain even traces of GMOs?

4) Do you agree with Ronnie Cummins’ statement that organic farmers need to begin standing up for themselves? Why or why not?

5) How do you feel about the Organic Trade Association’s executive director’s statement? Do you think it’s reasonable?

6) Do you think that GMO farmers will eventually run organic farmers out of business? Why or why not?

Add a graphic

The picture at the top on the left clearly shows a group of people protesting GMOs.

The image at the top on the right shows what genetically engineered alfalfa looks like. GE alfalfa is one of the most recent genetically engineered crops to be approved.

Hypocritism?

Water brand latest to jump on the environmental bandwagon
Relax News
March 17, 2011
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/water-brand-latest-to-jump-on-the-environmental-bandwagon-2244949.html

Recently the water company, Evian, came out with a new 1.5L bottle. It's been advertised that this bottle is made with 50% Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) , is 100% recyclable, and uses 11% less less plastic. Evian is not the first company to take this step, as pepsico has done similar with its water bottles. It appears as though we can trust water bottles more. However, here's what your not being told. Americans alone purchase 29 billion water bottles, which takes 17 million barrels of crude oil to manufacture, and only about 5 billion of them end up being recycled. Not only this, but 6kg of carbon dioxide are produced for every 1kg of PET in the water bottles. It is for these reasons that environmentalists remain unconvinced.

I have personally never been a big fan of water bottles. If I ever want water, I get it from the sink. It's completely free, and it's safe to drink. With water bottles you to pay to mess up the environment. This is the biggest scam I've ever heard of. I don't know how we could have been tricked into this. Even though water bottle companies are trying to get better, they're never going to stop polluting the earth.

Do you drink water bottles? If so, do you drink Evian or Pepsico brand?
Do you think water bottles are a scam?
What would you do if you were head of one of these companies?

NYC Purchasing Watershed Land

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/16/new-york-city-can-buy-more-watershed-land-state-says/?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

New York City Can Buy More Watershed Land, State Says
By: Mireya Navarro
An article from Green-A Blog About Energy and the Environment
February 16, 2011

Summary

This article is all about how New York City is buying land so it can keep protecting its watershed. On Wednesday, February 16th, the state of New York announced that NYC is allowed to keep buying land in an effort to protect the Catskill and Hudson River Valley Watershed. An agreement was made between the EPA and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation that will allow New York to keep purchasing land for the next 15 years.

Currently, 100,000 acres of the New York watershed (1 million acres in total) are protected by the city. In addition, 200,000 more acres are owned by the state. Right there is 35 percent of the watershed land being protected. The main reason New York cares so much about its watersheds is that by buying the land and protecting it prevents the city from spending 10 billion dollars on a filtration plant. Already 400 million dollars have been spent buying watershed land, and 140 million dollars are reserved for upcoming purchases. New York City expects to continue buying land at a rate of about 10,000 acres a year.

NYC’s environmental protection commissioner, Caswell Holloway, said that she believes the most effective way to maintain high water quality is by protecting water at its’ source. She feels that the established agreement will help to do just that.

Finally, the agreement has allotted 100 million dollars to be spent on programs that help limit water pollution. An example of this is repairing septic systems.

In conclusion, New York City recently reached an agreement that will allow it to continue purchasing land in order to protect its watershed in the Catskill and Hudson River Valley. By buying and protecting different areas of the watershed, NYC will save 10 billion dollars because a filtration plant won’t have to be purchased and installed. Also, 100 million dollars is reserved for spending on limiting water pollution programs. A lot of people are happy with this newfound agreement.

Opinion/Reflection

I personally think that even though New York may be purchasing the land for a selfish purpose (they won’t have to buy a 10 billion dollar filtration plant if they can protect their waterways), the program will have a positive effect on the environment. Since thousands of acres of the watershed have already been bought and protected, the pollution rate (from things like littering) will have gone down and continue to go down. And if the watershed is protected, people can’t harm the plant and animal species living there. I feel that this is really great for I hate when animals are harmed because of human actions. It’s just not fair to them.

The thing that makes me wonder though is that even if this watershed area is protected, can’t pollution still get in the water? I mean I’m sure that the protection efforts are good and all, but let’s face it, not every area of the watershed can be monitored all hours in a day. Also, the areas of the watershed that haven’t been purchased and protected yet will still experience pollution. Pollution travels in water, and waterways in watersheds are connected, so won’t pollution still wind up in the protected areas of land? I honestly think that someone should further look into this, since the water people in NYC are drinking water that might not be safe (it isn’t treated).

This relates to class because we discussed before what can happen if watersheds are polluted, and how badly humans can be affected if they drink contaminated water. It’s terrible to think about what can happen to people who drink polluted water (like the poor man who suffered from arsenic poisoning), but it’s a reality that we all need to face. Plus, I feel that it is the government’s responsibility to clean the people’s drinking water, because no one should have to suffer on another’s behalf. If the government just managed the water properly in the first place, then nothing bad would happen.

Ask Questions

1) What is your opinion on the agreement New York City made with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation?
2) Do you think that New York is buying the land to protect the watersheds, its' citizens, or for its' own self interest?
3) How long do you think it will take before New York is able to purchase all of the land in its watersheds? Will it be before the 15 year agreement is over?
4) Do you agree with what Caswell Holloway said about the program?
5) Can you think of any other examples of programs limiting water pollution that the 100 million dollars can be spent upon?

Graphic

The graphic at the top of the page clearly shows what the Catskill/Delaware (Hudson River Valley) Watershed looks like.

Fish vs. Fire Retardants

FISH...

This article in the New York Times addresses a big issue in California. Wildfires are very prone there, and for some reason there are lots of people who want to live in those areas (I don't know why on Earth you'd want to live there, but maybe Cali has some pretty sneaky real estate agents). So when fires break out pretty much every year, the state uses a whole lot of fire retardant to try to slow down the spread of the fire (gee, San Fran could have used that back in 1906), sometimes to even extinguish it (even though that's not the intended use for it, hence fire retardant, not fire extinguisher). That would be okay, but since the most commonly used retardant is a mixture of nitrates, phosphates, and even ammonia, the state ends up with a lot of dead fish in the local rivers, along with other aquatic life. There are alternatives to chemical retardants, including gels and foams, but retardant is the most popular.

...AGAINST FIRE

On the other hand, only 14 cases have been found where retardant actually had any effect on the waterways, (but one drop in Oregon in '02 killed 20,000 fish) and by this year (this is a three-year-old article) the ammonia levels are set to be lower in the mainline retardant product. Plus, as some people in the article point out, as soon as the retardant is discontinued, there will be people calling in yelling, "Start dumping that retardant!" Many wildfire experts also claim that resources damaged by retardant could potentially be lost entirely by fire if retardant was discontinued.

MY THOUGHTS

This is definitely more of a gray issue as opposed to black-and-white. It seems like there's not much that can be done in terms of compromise. Appeasing one side will almost always screw over the other. I think, personally, we need to first off stop people from moving into these dangerous areas in the first place. If there's no one around that will be hurt, we won't need to fight wildfires to protect residential areas, just for national parks, monuments, and other protected sites. People should be urged to not develop near these giant forests where the wildfires are likely. It's just stupid that people want to live there in the first place.

QUESTIONS POUR VOUS

1) Which issue do you think takes priority, fire or fishies? Why?

2) What impact could retardants have on local watersheds?

3) What do you think must be done?

4) What's your opinion about fire retardants?

Environmental Impact of Animal Waste: Disposal of animal waste in large-scale swine production examined

An anaerobic lagoon in South Carolina. Notice the size and color.

   My post is about an article from Science Daily, which can be found here, that discusses how effective anaerobic lagoons (pictured) actually are at treating waste from hog farms. Anaerobic lagoons are basically large pits into which farmers empty the waste produced by their animals. Because the pits attract large amounts of denitrifying and nitrifying organisms, it was traditionally through that those organisms would effectively treat the waste in the pit. However, new studies are showing that even though those organisms are present, they aren't active. If the waste isn't fully treated, acidification and eutrophication (introduction of natural or artificial substances into an aquatic system via fertilizers or sewage) can occur, which will mess with the local ecosystem by increasing the population of some organisms while decreasing the population of others. In spite of these new findings, and even though better waste treatment methods exist, anaerobic lagoons continue to enjoy widespread use, especially in the Carolinas. 

I personally think anaerobic lagoons are disgusting. I went to a farm with a couple of pigs once, and just the four smelled terrible. I can't imagine how horrible a pit filled with waste from thousands of pigs would smell. And to have to go through all that, only to find out that the lagoon wasn't actually doing anything? I think I would file a complaint if I lived near one of these farms. These lagoons should definitely not be legal. The eutrophication and acidification these lagoons can cause is ridiculous, especially since safer - and more effective - waste treatment methods are available. That's not my only worry about the lagoons either, because it seems like anaerobic lagoons are a possible point source of pollution. What about when it rains? The contents of the lagoon seem like they could easily run off and pollute ground water. And what about if there was heavy flooding? Would you want that in your home? In your water supply?

And now some questions for you:

What do you think are some other methods of treating animal waste?

Would you want to live near an anaerobic lagoon?

Do you think the risks posed by the lagoons are serious?

Do you think farms should be held responsible for disposing of the waste from their livestock? If not, who, if anyone, should be?

GOP vs. Commiunist EPA? http://www.grist.org/article/2011-02-18-gop-would-rather-shut-down-the-government-than-protect-your-air-

This article is from Grist.com and it has to do with how House Republicans are currently trying to cut almost all funding for the EPA by basically doing the following, "(1 thwart progressive ideals; (2 Blah blah blah (3 JOBS FOR EVERYONE!!!" ...Did you notice something there. Like the fact that there is no step two. That is basically the republicans plans that by cutting speniding on important things like the EPA that this will somehow crate jobs. They aren't sure how, but trust them it will create jobs. They are implementing these provisions, not all at once, but by adding them in one provision at a time by putting them in as amendments on spending bills. The reason for cutting the EPA's funding? Well it is quite simple. THE EPA HATES JOBS! According to Kansas Republican Mike Pompeo, the EPA, which employs 17,000 people, consists of a bunch of anti-job Marxists. "EPA would, I am sure, tell you that they are simply collecting a little bit of data on green houses gasses..." to learn a little bit more,"... about who is emitting greenhouse gases -- who or what, but this data is the very foundation of the EPA's effort to pursue its radical anti-jobs agenda..." and that allwoing them this data will let them put their" ...regulatory nose inside the job-destroying tent." The next portion of the article tells you each of the different amendmants so I will let you read that in the article. But one plan specifically blocks any presidental funding for the presidents climate advisor. They call this a "climate czar." Now I found this funny as czar is russian, so obviously it is a Communist position and since they oppose Marxism, this position must be eliminated. The republicans are so determined they would rather shut down the Government rather than give a single inch on this position.
Opinion
I have no idea what the Republicans were thinking when they thought up this plan. I don't know why they think that the EPA is trying to destroy jobs and the only proof that Republicans have is that the EPA would shut down a business, because the business was not enviromentally friendly. When I saw this article I immediatly thought about class because it talked about how the "GOP would rather shut down the government that protext your air and wate" and protecting our water is exactly what we were talking about in class for the last few days.
QUESTIONS
1) What do you think about this? Who do you side with?
2) Do you agree with the thought the EPA could ruin all jobs?
3) What would you do with the EPA?

Refugees

50 Million Environmental Refugees by 2020, Experts Predict

by Joanna Zelman

February 22, 2011

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/22/environmental-refugees-50_n_826488.html



A growing problem in the world is environmental refugees. Environmental refugees are people who have to leave their home because conditions are unsuitable for life. Examples would be if there is a drought and there's no water, or if there's a flood and there's no food. This isn't some sort of threat. This is actually happening. Already many Africans are crossing into Southern Europe due to food shortages. Global warming is playing a huge role in this. Global warming is causing warmer winters, which means less pests will die. With more pests, more plants will get infected with disease, which means less food. When there's no food, you've gotta move. Global warming is getting so bad, The Marshall Islands are trying to figure out if they'll still be a nation when all of their land goes underwater. That would be an entire country of environmental refugees. This shows we need to do more about global warming than we thought.



I think this shows, once again, that global warming is messing up the world. It's amazing that it's gotten this bad. I think it would suck if I had to become a refugee. We really need to stop being lazy about the environment.



1) Are you going to do anything to prevent this?

2) What would you do if you became a refugee?

3) Do you think this will ever happen to anyone you know?