Seralini Study on GM Food Crops

Seralini study republished

I think on balance that the work probably does not adequately convince me that the GM corn is a prime culprit causing harm to the animals [ in this case rats].  Probably too many confounding factors involved to be a clearcut decision.  BUT……..publishing does open the arguments and debate to others, and that it does.  But logical open debate is how science moves forward.  Let it continue!

The article is sourced from Queensland Country Life, but there are comments from elsewhere.

Wider circulation aids the debate on both sides.

http://static.fairfaxrural.com.au/multimedia/images/large/2079764.jpg   

Seralini is trying to convince us that he has a magic coin that only comes up ‘heads’

RELATED

French GM study raises red flags on both sides

GM study attacked anew

Seralini retraction welcomed

Republication of the infamous Seralini study on the toxicity of genetically modified (GM) food crops has been met with renewed criticism from the global scientific community.

French researcher Gilles Seralini’s paper into the toxicity of glyphosate-resistant GM maize on rats was initially published by Food and Chemical Toxicology in September 2012, then retracted by the journal in December 2013 after scathing reviews from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the Australian biotech sector.

It is being republished on 24 June in Environmental Sciences Europe, an Open Access journal, but without significant alteration.

The authors claimed their study showed GM maize causes tumours in rats, but the paper’s design and methodology was pilloried on first publication, primarily for lack of controls.

Alan McHughen, plant biotechnologist at the College of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, UC Riverside, USA, said the number of rats used was too small to detect a meaningful difference in treatments – and that this had not changed with republication of the material.  “For those not familiar, it’s as if Seralini tossed a coin two times, and the coin came up ‘heads’ both times,” Dr McHughen said.  “With this result, Seralini is trying to convince us that he has a magic coin that only comes up ‘heads’.

Dr McHughen noted the strain of rats used (Sprague-Dawley) have a natural predisposition to form tumours, regardless of treatment.  “Seralini has not and can not justify this fatal error in experimental design.”

Matthew Cossey, chief executive at CropLife Australia, said the scientific community would not accept "junk science".  “The claims made in the report contradicted the vast weight of evidence in the form of hundreds of independent, peer reviewed studies and decades of research, which show that approved GM crops are as safe as their conventional counterparts,” he said.

Senior Lecturer in the University of Adelaide School of Medicine Sciences, Dr Ian Musgrave, said the “major flaws in this study still remain”.

Dr Musgrave said Professor Seralini used the wrong controls and failed to consistently take into account dose response or measured outcomes.  “The GM corn had no effect on the number of tumours - Roundup (glyphosate) even decreased the number of tumours in male rats, as did the combination of Roundup and GM corn in male rats... (with) no consistent effect in female rats.

“This shows that all we are seeing in these results is due to random variation in a poorly controlled experiment.”

Associate Professor Peter Dearden, Director of Genetics at the University of Otago in New Zealand, said the paper being published was “identical to the first one”. However, he said the flawed study raised some interesting points which should be further developed with proper methodology.  “The paper was, in my mind, inconclusive, but pointed a direction in which future research could go,” Prof Dearden said.  “Inconclusive data is no reason to retract a peer-reviewed and published paper.  “Retracting the original paper in this unusual way has not served the scientific process well. All good science is a debate, and one that should be held publically in published journals. Only through open publication, replication and exchange of scientific data can we use science effectively.  “Controversial studies should not be buried because of public argument. They should be investigated, repeated, and new data published to either disprove or support the original findings. Only then do we get a clear and robust argument.”

Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said there had been a concerted effort to discredit Prof Seralini’s work by the pro-GM lobbyists, and the Seralini study met none of the scientific grounds for retraction.  “The guidelines for retractions in scientific publishing established by the Committee on Publication Ethics... state that the only grounds for a journal to retract a paper are clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, honest error or plagiarism - and this study meets none of these criteria.”

The Safe Food Foundation (SFF) welcomed the republication as "vindication of Seralini's work", saying the study raised serious issues about the safety of glyphosate and GM crops.  SFF director Scott Kinnear said renewed focus on the Seralini study - coming on the heels of organic farmer Steve Marsh's appeal - highlighted deficiencies in regulatory assessments for safety.

Mr Marsh unsuccessfully sued his GM-growing neighbour for damages after alleged GM cross-contamination of his crop.  "Justice Martin commented that there were no safety issues with the GM canola grown (in the Marsh v Baxter case)," Mr Kinnear said.  "We disagree with Justice Martin and find that this study is aligned with other studies that point to disruption of the normal hormonal and fertility systems in laboratory animals exposed to low levels of Roundup and GMOs."

Australian Consumers Want Australian Produced Canned Fruit and Frozen Vegetables

In a stunning announcement, Woolworths has admitted that local consumers prefer /want Australian produced frozen vegetables, and that they will now source most if not all product from Australia, and not China as is the case now for many of the lower price items.

They have announced a major, near $17 million contract with Simplot, to source product from their processing plant in Tasmania, a major and possible business saving contract for the company, as well as the supplier growers, which has been discussing shutting down totally in Australia.

Media reports are focussing on the deal to grow and process in Australia, but is not the real issue that maybe, just maybe, that consumers in Australia are beginning to favour the quality, safety, health status and food biosecurity issues related to poorly supervised and often less appropriately produced product from places such as China, where there have been so many food safety alerts over food products?

And is Woolworths now tapping into that concern?  The media report from late yesterday seemed to have more focus on that aspect, yet today there is maybe a bit less emphasis on that aspect.

This is an important deal for Australian vegetable growers, and especially those in Tasmania.  And for whatever reason, Woolworths also deserve some plaudits to "use Australian".  Now lets see how it develops.

It also follows an earlier deal in which Woolworths switched to Australian canned fruit, rather than overseas product and saw a 40% sales rise in the canned fruit product.

See more here - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-18/simplot-woolworths-deal/5030720

and here - http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/woolies-imports-freeze-boosts-farmers/story-e6frg8zx-1226741990944

Food Quality and Safety - Luck or Vigilance in Australia?

Australians like to believe we have excellent food quality and safety standards.  That is probably so, although there have been a few incidents in the past, say ten years, over some processed smallgoods in which some people died, and an occassional salmonella issue, particularly with poultry.

Overall mark - a tick.

Yet issues about Chinese food quality and safety continue to make headlines - not only in China but around the world.

Most recent - the issue of cadmium contamination in rice in southern China, which is making headlines this week.  Yesterday, Government officials in southern China sought to calm public ire about toxic substances menacing the region's main food staple, rice, after the city of Guangzhou said that nearly half the rice tested [44%] at restaurants this year had excessive cadmium, a heavy metal that can cause cancer and other illnesses.  Cadmium contamination in the body is one of the reasons why there is a major international recall and removal / replacement issues with a particular hip joint prothesis, so cadmium can be nasty, and high levels potentially fatal. 

Food is an obvious source of all heavy metals in the body, with a lot of historical precedents, as the cause of heavy metal problems in people.  Cadmium is one of those heavy metals, which just continue to accumulate in the body. 

Whie there is heavy industrialisation in China, and air pollution, the source of the cadmium is so far unidentified.

In Australia cadmium in foods is partially regulated through restrictions on the cadmium levels in fertilisers, especially superphosate and related phosphorus fertilisers, which can add cadmium to soils, ultimately reaching the products grown on that soil.

We do take our food for granted, not always realising the long chain of regulatory procedures prior to the consumer using the food products.

There has been a vigorous discussion this week on an Australian agribusiness forum about consumer views on use of Chinese food products imported into Australia.  Think major supermarket chains, frozen vegetables, fresh garlic, and other products.  Consumers in Australia are concerned over the intrinsic quality of imported Chinese food, and according to some views are worried that price which dominates supermarket chain thinking, might be compromising food safety.  It is NOT a xenophobic reaction........but one based on quality as well as a fair go for Australian producers.

Maybe we need to boost testing of imported Chinese food products.

And remember, Chinese consumers are buying Australian food products - think milk, among others, and paying more because we are seen as having clean safe food products.

 

applying superphosate fertiliser to pastures

Better Tasting Tomatoes

Do you think tomatoes are tasteless?   Many do.

They hanker back to fresh vine ripened tomatoes where both smell and taste were terrific.  If you grew up in a summer tomato production area like I did you can probably still smell that great odour from ripe tomatoes and taste the ripe flesh.

Today, even growing the same varieties, they are never quite the same.  Produced too far from fresh markets, they are picked too green to allow travel time and prevent damage.  When working in a tomato field, picking was made to be about getting what were called semi ripe tomatoes - thosse expecte to be at their peak in just a few days.  With major markets 50 -80km away, you knew they would be used at their peak flavour.

While modern plant breeding and production has delivered varieties that retain "taste"and ripeness over extended periods, so that production is often several thousand kilometres from the user, and they arrive in a good condition in the shops.........they are just not quite the same.  Many say taste less!

Fear not, the same plant breeding processes are on the trail and may have discovered some genes that are linked to six specific volatile compounds that enhance the perception of sweetness - the single most critical factor in any person's rating of a tomato.  These volatiles can fool the brain, with tomatoes having high levels being preferred to those varieties naturally sweeter [ based on sugar compounds].

The work is now underway to incorporate these genes into tomatoes to combine better taste and smell, while retaining keeping quality and extended ripeness.

This issue has been around for over 25 years - ever since tomatoes became a mass production crop grown a long way from consumers, but hopefully we may see some change soon.

fresh tomatoes on the vine
 

More here - http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/scientificamerican0513-84

Organic Food - A Social Crutch for the Wealthy?

Organic food and organic agriculture will never feed the world, yet adherents in western countries continue to expand.  Or are they?

Recent studies show a connection between organic agriculture and food devotees and altruistic behaviour which may indicate some social and psychological conditions.

Many of the claims made about organic food just do not stack up, especially in relation to freedom from pesticides in comparison to conventionally produced foods.

While the tenor of this recent article is provocative, and probably meant to be that way, it does debunk many claims related to organic production systems, and alludes to the social issues around users of the materials.

Read it yourself, and do not be too indulgent with your food.  A good diet is essential!!

http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/blogs/agribuzz-with-david-leyonhjelm/organic-food-its-a-religion/2611131.aspx?storypage=0

A US Farmer's View on Biotech

Too often the urban public attack farmers and agriculture - as producing too much, too little, or poor food sources.

A farmer has hit back - quietly and with dignity.

Read more here - http://westernfarmpress.com/print/government/gmos-biotechnology-offer-agricultural-blessings?page=1

pointing out a few fundamental flaws in some of the arguments used to condemn farmers and the crops and livestock they grow.

Well worth a brief read.

Food Security Critical for China

A recent post highlights that Australia is selling off resources to China - land resources for agriculture especially.

[see - http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com/2011/09/should-australia-be-selling-farm.html ]

Not all are happy over this issue.

China, as distinct from Australia has some clear policies around food security and imports of minerals, with a distinct focus on extra-terrritorial acquistion of the means of production - of both.

See more here - http://qcl.farmonline.com.au/news/nationalrural/agribusiness-and-general/finance/china-aims-for-selfsufficiency/2268434.aspx?storypage=0

In this article Prof Mike Berrell, Director WADEmatheson and Executive Dean, Holmes Institute, Australia, an expert on Chinese business practices says Australia’s lack of strategy and vision for a sustainable agricultural industry, was flagging in comparison to China’s global approach.

He said for the Chinese to be purchasing prime agricultural land outright entails risks for Australia due to loss of control in what is emerging as a global strategic industry.

This would be especially the case if the ventures were 100 percent Chinese invested, he said.

Despite China's recent efforts to reduce carbon emissions, China's current commitment to sustainability does not extend to agricultural practices, he said.

“Joint ventures in the area would be preferable to 100 percent Chinese foreign ownership - the latter of course suits China,” he said. “Australia must be absolutely clear about how such ventures are to move ahead and establish strict guidelines for ownership - perhaps make sustainable agriculture a strategic industry is the same way has China has its “strategic industries”, which fall outside normal investment guidelines.”

A significant issue in this is that most players from China are state owned, effectively an arm of the sovereign government of China. While other parts of the world have previously invested in Australian rural properties and industries, and many still do, [think the UK and the USA] they are almost always privately owned companies, or private individuals, and from countries where government intervention in industry is minimal.

This is a serious issue for Australia, a nett food exporter, with other sovereign countries owning our food production resources.

The image also shows that it is not just China - an example of the options that Singapore is pursuing in a similar fashion.

Should Australia be concerned over the whole theme of extra-territorial agriculture?

Potential New Cacao Varieties

Do you like chocolate? Delicious not so sweet dark chocolate?

Over the past few years we have seen increases in interest in wine varieties, followed by new and different olive oil flavours. Coffee is going the same way, with new blends, varieties and types offered in the market place, to titillate and entrance consumers and coffee lovers.

Watch this space..........chocolate may be next!

Recently reports of work by USDA staff in conjunction with several other agencies as well as commercial choclate company partners have been chasing new and different types of cacao.......the source tree for chocolate.

While West Africa is the source of much of the world supply of cacao, the centre of diversity is actually in south America, and up into lower central america, areas now being investigated for additional genetic diversity in cacao.

The researchers found hundreds of new cacao tree samples during the trips. One of these, discovered by collaborators from Maranon Chocolate, was Pure Nacional, an old, very rare, and highly coveted variety that has garnered a great deal of interest from makers of fine-flavoured chocolates. Chocolate is produced from cacao.

This industry covets new and unique flavour sources.

Usually, cacao trees are found along rivers, but these gems were found at a higher altitude than normal, and in Peru instead of Ecuador or Venezuela.

The industry flourished in Africa as commercial plantation trees in the new World succumbed to some nasty plant diseases. These new collections may offer some advantages for Peru to create a niche industry for the new cacao varieties.

Wagyu Cattle Oil - for Cooking!!

If you like beef you probably have heard of Wagyu cattle. The fabled highly marbled cattle originally from Japan with superb meat quality.

An Australian company has developed a boutique world class cooking oil - yes, cooking oil - from wagyu cattle with some pretty interesting properties.

http://theland.farmonline.com.au/news/state/livestock/cattle/wagyu-oil-set-to-sizzle/2277740.aspx?storypage=0

is the link to a recent article about the product.

While I do not see it suddenly overtaking olive oil as a preferred option for most culinary purposes, it might offer some superior options for use with meat in roasts or grilling, or maybe in meat dishes where butter may have been the fat material preferrred for use in casseroles or similar dishes.

Chefs do seem to think it might be useful.

It is new, it is Australian and it does sound interesting.

Waste and Energy Management Gone Crazy

Stick a fork in it, we're done

Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Green the Capitol initiative is over at the House's Longworth cafeteria.

By Charlotte Allen
February 13, 2011

After about a month in control of the House of Representatives, Republicans haven't managed to undo as many deeds of their Democratic predecessors as they'd like. They couldn't get rid of "Obamacare," and they haven't made much headway in slashing the president's $4-trillion budget. But the GOP has succeeded in short order in one critically important venture: getting rid of the "compostable" cornstarch-based knives, forks and spoons that were a universally — and bipartisanly — hated feature of the House cafeteria operation.

The tableware, the color of mucus and as bendable as a pocket watch in a Salvador Dali painting (and thus unable to pierce any foodstuff firmer than the innards of Brie cheese), was the most visible manifestation of recently deposed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's Green the Capitol initiative.

That was her carbon-cutting effort to use the food-service and other House operations to fight global warming and a host of other perceived environmental, health and social ills. During the lunchtime rush, you could observe dozens of staffers struggling to stab lettuce leaves and poultry pieces with fork tines that appeared to be double-jointed as well as dull.

But on Jan. 25, Dan Lungren, the GOP congressman from the Sacramento area who now heads the House Administration Committee, directed the House chief administrative officer to trash — so to speak — the composting program, which converts the dining service's cornstarch tableware, along with its biodegradable plates, trays, cups and drinking straws, into garden mulch.

It turns out that the composting program not only cost the House an estimated $475,000 a year (according to the House inspector general) but actually increased energy consumption in the form of "additional energy for the pulping process and the increased hauling distance to the composting facility," according to a news release from Lungren. As far as carbon emissions were concerned, Lungren concluded that the reduction was the "nominal ... equivalent to removing one car from the road each year." He plans to switch the House to an alternate waste-management system recommended by the Architect of the Capitol, in which dining-service trash would be incinerated and the heat energy captured. "Composting releases methane," said Lungren's spokesman, Brian Kaveney, and methane gas, as even the most warming-conscious among us have to admit, traps atmospheric heat far more efficiently than carbon dioxide, the usual bugaboo of the climate-change crowd. Lungren's stick-a-biodegradable-fork-in-it (if you can) stance toward a linchpin of Pelosi's grand green plan marks the latest skirmish in a lifestyle war that may on its surface seem purely partisan: GOP global-warming skeptics versus a Gaia-worshipping Democratic Party.

But I'd say the battle lines are really between an elite determined to impose upon a captive populace its notions of what is good for it — cost be damned — and the populace itself, which would rather not be coerced.

In Pelosi's home territory, the city of San Francisco, composting is mandatory for householders, who face a fine if they throw orange peels into the trash rather than into their city-provided composting bins.

Plastic bags are against the law in large-chain stores, and plastic water bottles are against the law in City Hall. In the name of health you can't buy a soft drink on public property in San Francisco, and soon you won't be able to buy a Happy Meal with a toy at McDonald's for your kid.

The uber-bohemians of San Francisco love this sort of thing; others, maybe not so much.

Green the Capitol was launched in 2007, soon after Pelosi became speaker. The Longworth cafeteria, catering to House employees but also serving the public, was to be the carbon-neutral jewel in Pelosi's green crown. Out went the familiar mystery meatloaf and high-fat coconut cake and in came food that was organic, sustainable, locally grown and fair-traded. I visited the Longworth cafeteria in early 2008, soon after it reopened under Pelosi's rule. Not only had food been replaced with "cuisine" (roasted corn and poblano chili, anyone?), but there was also a sea of didactic signage. One sign reminded you that the beef in the hamburgers was "humanely raised" and "antibiotic-free." Other placards touted "cage-free eggs" and "rBGH-free milk." A poster trumpeted the "pulper," a costly machine that made compostable cubes out of food waste. And then there were the recycling stations, where a lengthy set of rules instructed diners on how to separate trash items and dump them into four different slots (coffee cups in the "compostable" slot, coffee lids in the "landfill" slot).

No sooner did the cafeteria reopen than the grousing began, from both sides of the political aisle.

Some diners tried to puzzle out what turkey escabeche might be and wondered what happened to the fried chicken. Others complained about the new high prices that accompanied the new haute offerings."I just wished my pay improved" along with the food quality, a Democratic aide complained to a reporter for Politico. But the bitterest carping was over that compostable flatware. A Hill urban legend circulated that the spoons would melt in a cup of hot coffee. They don't, but they do bend readily enough to make you think you're Uri Geller.

When I revisited the Longworth cafeteria last week, three years later, I could not help noticing that although the flimsy cornstarch tableware was still in use — it will be retired as soon as the stock on hand is used up — a sea change had otherwise occurred. The sermony signage was gone, as was much of the art-food: the purple Peruvian potatoes and the "panzanella station," where you could build a salad out of arugula, figs and large wedges of stale bread. The salad bar these days is, well, a salad bar, with trays of chopped olives, shredded carrots and garbanzo beans to top the lettuce. Serious efforts have been made to cater to the needs of House employees who can't afford Armani suits. Among the stations with the longest lunchtime lines was one labeled simply "BBQ." Its special was a $5.50 pulled-pork platter with two sides (including classic mac and cheese) and cornbread.

The years from 2006 through 2010, starting with the Democratic takeover of the House and ending with the party's rout after two years of Barack Obama's presidency, were four years of an effort by a know-it-all liberal elite to impose sweeping and extreme social and fiscal measures on a centrist-to-right public: four years of turkey escabeche, so to speak.

Now, with a GOP House and divided government, there seems to be a return to normalcy, and it's beginning with the promise of knives and forks that work.

Charlotte Allen is a Washington writer.
Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times
----------------------------------------

A stern reminder of what can go wrong with crazy ideas poorly implemented and totally out of touch with community ideas.

I am sure a program - a sensible program - could have been implemented in the cafetaria. And afterall, what would be wrong with ordinary plate and cutlery use, and washing them, with a sensible waste management program to handle the organic wastes? It is generally wiser to wash and reuse equipment rather than single use.

As for menu changes, are not they best organised with users views considered? If Jamie Oliver can do it for communities in the US, maybe he needs to be asked about the menus?

Oh well.......it is the USA I guess.

Dioxin Contamination in Food Scare - Germany

China is often accused of lax process and poor management of industrial food processes. The contaminated milk powder scandal is but part of that.

This time it is Germany......and dioxin.

Same sort of issue, a company in this case it seems, opting for cheap ingredients for formulated animal feeds, with the material not suitable for animal use, but only for industrial use. The animal feeds were then used and the dioxin showed up in eggs, pork, etc.

The contamination is nominally small, really miniscule. But modern analytical techniques can detect very very small levels of some of these toxic products, and dioxin is certainly toxic. German authorities are playing it down, stating that levels are extremely low, and NOT a human health threat.......which is most probably true. But perception is EVERYTHING, and the public is very unhappy over the whole issue.

Food safety is a big issue, and Germany is a big organic market, so there are many consumers if not buying organic foods exclusively, do so at times. This will further inflame emotions over the "factory food" catchcry.

In reality............a shoddy, tawdry manufacturer, who it seems is under big pressure and may become insolvent over the issue.

There are many news items with this one a reasonable overview:

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=564818&vId=

This will reopen questions about regulation or reregulation of food quality. Yet, in reality the problem WAS detected, and quickly dealt with. There will be recriminations, absolutely no doubt.

Urban Agriculture - Concepts for 2050

While 2050 might be 40 years in the future, planning and development thinking has already been evolving about what agriculture might be like.

There have been options mulled over including : -

• agriculture and horticulture as part of green roofs on multi story buildings
• use of the vertical surfaces of building to have plants growing on the facades
• use of warehouses to convert to hydroponic production [ currently being done in some rundown city areas in the USA]
• local community gardens
• locally reprocessed and used organic wastes and water

and the most recent scenario is even more ambitious.

It is the integration of production, processing and sale of fresh produce including fish farming and potentially some animal production such as chickens and other poultry in an integrated manner in a single facility.

It also potentially offers urban recycling as presumably a facility might also require composts and recycled water.

The link is: -http://www.justmeans.com/Agropolis-Future-of-Urban-Agriculture/30772.html

It is an intriguing concept and it would have many advantages for many cool regions of the world.

It is reproduced below. Read and think........

Last week at the Nordic Exceptional Trendshop 2010, held in Denmark, one presentation took urban agriculture to the next level. A collaboration with NASA, you might even say it launched urban agriculture out of this world, and into the future.

The idea is called Agropolis, a combination grocery store, restaurant, and farm all in one building, employing the most advanced technologies in hydroponic, aeroponic, and aquaponic farming. As it stands, Agropolis is still just a mere idea, with little more than some cool graphics to back it up.

But regardless, Agropolis ushers forth a new wave of thinking about urban food systems.

The team behind the Agropolis concept proposes that this new generation of store would be an ecosystem unto itself, a finely tuned orchestra of parts in balance, that would not only be totally envrionmentally sustainably and friendly, but also just plain producing the freshest food around.

But what would all these innovative, NASA-inspired state of the art hydroponics and other high-tech solutions look like in practice? ............According to the vision of Agropolis, a customer would walk into a store that is covered in green. Vegetables growing on the walls as far as the eye can see. And below the floors one would see tilapia swimming, working in tandem with vegetables in an aquaponic system. You would buy a tomato that was literally just picked, from a plant that you can see in front of you. The store would bring a whole new meaning to local, and one-up the notion of hyper local, since all the food available to eat or buy would have traveled zero miles from the farm to the store. At most, just a few steps.

It all sounds grand, and more than a little space-age. But the challenge given to the team that came up with Agropolis wasn't entirely outside reality: Create a farm without relying on arable lad. As the Earth's healthy soil and other resources dwindle, it may not be out of the realm of possibility that a system like Agropolis be needed, particularly in urban areas.

And while urban agriculture has come a long way, incorporating all kinds of creative and innovative ideas and technologies, in order to make it work on a large and global scale it may be time for something as futuristic and high-tech as Agropolis. But imagine if, in fifty years, or some other future point, our grocery stores did include built in farms, how our relationship to food would change. For one thing, the variety of food we eat might change--are there some vegetables and fruits that can't be grown using these artificial systems? Would we only eat tilapia, and no other meat?

Other vertical and urban farm project proposals include a variety of "staple" crops and animals that all work seamlessly together. But is biting into a fresh, hydroponic, LED light feeding tomato really as good as getting one from your local organic farmer who's tomatoes ripen in the sun?

What will the foodies of this imagined future look like?

In this brave new world of urban agriculture, one this is certain: While Agropolis insists that the store/restaurant/farm will be a sort of ultimate consumer experience, it'll be a much different experience than what we have access to now.

Queen Garnet Plum Variety has Extra Nutrition

This post follows on quite well from the previous one, and does provide some answers as to why, and what can be the fantastic outcomes from agricultural research and development.

There is no doubt that for urbanised populations, the role of the nutracetical is a rising issue. Eat well and combat all sorts of issues from vitamin depletion to avoiding cancer to increased libido......nutraceticals offer hope, at a price.

Why shouldn't agriculture also join this group? There is already at least one publicly listed company here in Australia in a quest for market development with a strong nutracetical product, based on agricultural wastes. Doesn't a new fresh plum offer something a bit special? Eat fresh fruit and become extra healthy too?

This current new fruit tree has some serious potential. And yes, as someone has already observed, it will be grown overseas too. Just that this needs to be better managed to gain maximise potential for Australia. But in reality, barriers to entry sometimes make growing food nearer the market desirable, not to mention the seasonality of production for the fresh market, and that particular niche is very, and increasingly, important in some regions........that bogy of "food miles" can suface, and derail marketing. So why not develop production close to the market??

This is a VERY interesting new fruit variety, and the push to rapidly develop adequate fruit supplies will be vital in reaching a critical mass for marketing purposes. An area that often can be the failure point for new varieties, especially for slower developing tree fruits.

-----------------------------
Partner for queen of plums given thumbs up


A commercial agreement has just been signed for a plum bred by Queensland scientists that could help fight the effects of aging and lifestyle diseases.

The Bligh Government has partnered with Nutrafruit Pty Ltd to see the Queen Garnet plum produced as a high-antioxidant fresh fruit variety and as a nutraceutical ingredient.

Minister for Primary Industries, Fisheries and Rural and Regional Queensland Tim Mulherin said the plum’s major drawcard was its high levels of anthocyanin-the antioxidant responsible for giving the fruit its rich, garnet-red colour. “Researchers have determined that one glass of Queen Garnet plum juice contains as much antioxidants as drinking two small glasses of red wine, six cups of tea or 12 glasses of orange juice,” Mr Mulherin said. “Research suggests that high levels of antioxidants, especially anthocyanins, can help reduce the inflammation that is an underlying cause of certain cancers, heart disease and neurological degenerative disorders.
“The compounds have been shown to inhibit cancer cell growth in several studies overseas."
“Anthocyanin levels are two to five times higher in Queen Garnet than other red-flesh plums, and between 10 and 30 times higher than in yellow plums.”

Nutrafruit director Hugh Macintosh said apart from investing in research into the health benefits of the plum, the company had other big plans for the fruit. “We are looking at processing the plum as a high-antioxidant ingredient for health drinks and related products, and as other nutraceuticals, such as vitamin tablets,” Mr Macintosh said. “Because the fresh plum is currently only available for about one month on the market, processing it into a range of health products would allow a year-round supply. “It also opens up export options to markets, which currently have trade restrictions on stone fruit, but not on processed products." “We’re currently conducting a small trial on ready-to-drink Queen Garnet juice products and our ultimate plan is to get the juice products into large chain and health-food stores."

Department of Environment Economic Development and Innovation (DEEDI) principal experimentalist Dougal Russell said researchers were continuing work on other healthy plum breeding lines, as the commercial agreement with Nutrafruit extended to include collaborations through future research.

“Our breeding program here in Queensland is in a selection phase where we are identifying other new high-anthocyanin plums,” Mr Russell said. “The aim is to increase the harvest window by developing a suite of high-antioxidant fresh-market and processing plum varieties that ripen from December through to March. “Queen Garnet is a plum that can be multiplied and grown in an orchard easily rather than hiking around a mountain in the Andes picking berries. “Growing Queen Garnet fruit for processing also has many advantages for primary producers." “There are no grading or sorting issues and little waste – 95 per cent or more of the crop will be used, against 60 to 70 per cent when growing for first-grade quality." “Fruit can also be frozen and processed when more convenient.”

There are currently 13,000 to 14,000 Queen Garnet plum trees dedicated for juice production planted around Australia and the same amount is expected to be planted in June/July this year, with a further 60,000 trees to be planted in 2011.

The fruit will also be grown offshore, with growers in Spain negotiating to produce process-quality fruit.

In addition to its high-antioxidant levels, Queen Garnet is known to have a delicious taste, with excellent size, colour and flavour, and it stores extremely well.

Some limited volumes of fresh fruit will be available in markets in 2011.

Nutrafruit is currently in negotiations with companies in New Zealand, South Africa, France and the United States interested in establishing fresh market production of Queen Garnet.

For more information on DEEDI’s fruit and vegetable breeding programs, visit www.deedi.qld.gov. au and click on ‘Agriculture, Fisheries and Food’ in the ‘Innovation’ box.

[ partially sourced from on-line resources of Qld Country Life and QDEEDI]

The REAL GM Food Scandal

For a salutary examination of the issues around GM food have a look at the following:

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2007/11/therealgmfoodscandal/

This appeared in Prospect Magazine in November 2007.

The noises have increased but really.............lets get back to basics! If agriculture is to feed the world between now and 2050, we need to invest in technology, develop a whole lot of smarts about land management and crop production and produce food. While there will be changes in how and where food wil be produced and the logistics of moving food to where required, but food will definitely be needed.

Western Europe is dominated politically by left leaning greenies, hence the anti GM stance. But recent figures quoted in Scientific American November 2009 show the big use of GM crops are in the US, Argentina, Brazil, India and often by smaller scale farmers.

They are not always chosen because the multinationals dominate the seed industry.......rather they are chosen because they perform, make money for the growers and save labour and costs.

Nutritional value of Organic food Claimed to Be Superior

The Biological Farmers Association of Australia has isused a press release covering a French report on the nutritional value of organic foods.

While of interest, it does not address whether the claims actually mean anything in day to day use of the organic or conventional grown products. As one wag said - who you believe, the poms or the frogs, alluding to the British report that claimed there were no differences in quality.

One thing for sure though, only the wealthy countries can really afford the prices charged for at times, inferior quality organic products. For about 90% of the world, food quantity is still the dominant issue. Singapore has had a similiar debate recently over organic food, and this in a country that imports about 95% of its food.
---------------------------------

Research verifies nutritional value of organic foods: BFA
15/09/2009 3:35:00 PM

A NEW report by the French Agency for Food Safety (AFSSA) has found that organic foods are more nutritious and contain less pesticides and nitrates, which have been linked to a range of health problems including diabetes and Alzheimer’s.

Shane Heaton, nutritionist for the Biological Farmers of Australia (BFA), says the research is a thorough and critical evaluation of the nutritional quality of organic food, and has found organic foods have higher levels of minerals and antioxidants as well as a raft of other benefits. “This is what an unbiased review of the available evidence reveals,” he says. “This review is contrary to another recently released review commissioned by the UK Food Standards Agency and widely reported in the media as showing organic food has no significant benefits over non-organic food.” "This review does the question justice by comparing not just a handful of nutrients but also dry matter content, antioxidant content, pesticide levels, and nitrate content." "Organic wins out over ordinary food in every respect.”

In 2001, AFSSA set up an expert working group to perform an exhaustive and critical evaluation of the nutritional and sanitary quality of organic food. The AFSSA says they aimed for the highest quality scientific standards during the evaluation. The selected papers referred to well-defined and certified organic agricultural practices, had the necessary information on design and follow-up, valid measured parameters and the appropriate sampling and statistical analyses.

After more than two years of work involving about 50 experts from different fields of organic agriculture research, a final consensus report was issued in the French language in 2003. The current study published in English in the peer reviewed scientific journal Agronomy for Sustainable Development is a summary of this report and the relevant studies that have been published since 2003.

The conclusions of this study challenge the findings of the recent UK Food Standards Agency study that was widely criticised by international experts for using flawed methodology and a conclusion that contradicted its own data.

The major points of The French Agency for Food Safety study are:
1. Organic plant products contain more dry matter (more nutrient dense).
2. Organic plant products have higher levels of minerals.
3. Organic plant products contain more anti-oxidants such as phenols and salicylic acid (known to protect against cancers, heart disease and many other health problems).
4. Carbohydrate, protein and vitamin levels are insufficiently documented.
5. 94–100pc of organic foods do not contain any pesticide residues.
6. Organic vegetables contain far less nitrates, about 50pc less (high nitrate levels are linked to a range of health problems including diabetes and Alzheimer’s).
7. Organic cereals contain similar levels of mycotoxins as conventional ones..
8. Organically-bred cattle have more lean meat and more polyunsaturated fatty acids than their conventional counterparts.
9. Organic chicken fillets contain 2–3 times less fat and are significantly higher in n–3 fatty acid content (with reported anti-cancer effects and other health benefits).


Source: http://swroc.cfans.umn.edu/organic/ASD_Lairon_2009.pdf

Food Waste is a Blight - for Producers and Users

A while back I published a blog about food waste and the enormous lost cost of all that waste [February 26, 2009].

Lo and behold, figures for Australia have come to light today. This waste is $5.3 billion per year. Holy Toledo.........that is a big bucket of $$. What do you waste? Do you compost your organic waste? Use the leftovers? If not why not?

--------------

Australians bin $5.3 billion of food each year

Australians love their food. Strangely enough, we also love throwing it out. According to a 2005 study by the Australia Institute, Australians bin a staggering $5.3 billion of food a year, including $630 million of uneaten takeaway, $876 million of leftovers and $241 million of frozen food.
In my mother's day, that would have made an awful lot of bubble'n'squeak.

It seems in the 21st century, though, we can imagine no better use for this food than as landfill.

"When people or restaurants throw away their food, they also waste all the resources, fuel and energy that went into getting that food from paddock to plate," chef Kylie Kwong says. "I use a lot of rice in my cooking but I need to be careful with how much I cook, because if I throw out a kilo of white rice, I'm also wasting the 2385 litres of water that it took to grow that rice."

If it makes you feel any better, Australians are hardly alone.

The British chuck out 15.7 million tonnes of food annually while, in the US, more than $100 billion of food goes to landfill every year. US food blogger Jonathan Bloom describes this as a double disaster, since food rotting in landfill is a major producer of methane, a greenhouse gas scientists estimate to be 20 times more damaging than carbon dioxide.

So what to do? In the US, food chain TGI Friday's has responded with the unthinkable - cutting back on portion sizes. New York's Hayashi Ya Japanese restaurant has even introduced a gluttony surcharge, with customers paying 3pc extra for not finishing their food.

Australian restaurants have yet to be so bold but the local industry has nevertheless made great leaps since the 1980s, when greenwaste recycling was unheard of. "Back then, only the very biggest businesses recycled anything," says John Hart, chief executive of Restaurants and Catering Australia. "And even then, it was just the basic stuff like paper and glass." Last year, Hart unveiled Green Table Australia, a nationwide scheme intended to help restaurants and catering businesses lower their environmental footprints by, among other things, a smarter approach to food waste. "Where there are clusters of food businesses, say, in a mall, we are trying to get them to share greenwaste disposal by putting their scraps into a Biobin that turns it all into compost," Hart says.

Some chefs, though, such as Detlef Haupt, are attacking the problem from the other end. As the executive chef at the Sydney Convention Centre, Haupt oversees the production of 1.3 million meals a year. Now, food wastage is a fraction of what it was when he arrived 10 years ago, thanks, in the first instance, to accurate ordering. "We order by grammage per person," Haupt says. "If you have lunch for 1000 people, you don't order for 1100 or 1200 - you order for 1000. "But to do this you must be confident in your capabilities: you have to make sure you have the talent in the kitchen to deliver 1000 portions, which means not overcooking or undercooking a single steak."

Haupt takes a different approach in the convention centre's freestanding restaurant, Bayside Lounge, where it's harder to predict numbers. Here, all protein items - fish, poultry and meat - are individually Cryovaced upon their arrival, then labelled and dated, thereby extending the food's life span by up to a week. Such measures require considerable capital outlay - Cryovac machines don't come cheap - not to mention a certain Teutonic gift for precision. "It helps that I am a complete control freak," Haupt says. Yet even Haupt has waste, mainly in the form of deli products such as packaged sandwiches. In this instance he makes a call to the good people at OzHarvest.

Launched four years ago, OzHarvest is a food charity that acts like a kind of culinary SWAT team, rescuing meals that would otherwise be chucked out and delivering them to people in need. "My background is in hospitality, I have my own events company," OzHarvest founder Ronni Kahn explains.
"I put on special events and through all my years there was always food going to waste, gorgeous food that cost lots of money to produce, like smoked salmon, chocolate mousse, canapes, it would all be thrown out at the end of the day. "And so I decided to do something about it."

OzHarvest now operates five vehicles that pick up leftover food from all over Sydney every day and deliver it to 148 charities. "So far, we have delivered 3.3 million meals to charity in the last four years," Kahn says. There is a particular pleasure, Kahn says, in seeing a homeless man eating a plate of stuffed mushrooms and lemon tarts. "It's like Christmas when our van turns up," he says.

Most of the food is donated by corporations, big city law and accountancy firms, plus a smattering of restaurants. For legal reasons, private homes can't contribute. So, what should you and I do with that bunch of wilted fennel and bowl of old rice? "Get creative!" Kwong says. "Cooking with leftovers is the most original form of recycling and you shouldn't always feel you have to cook to a specific recipe." Kwong recommends cutting up leftover vegetables and throwing them in a salad or a pasta dish, or cooking them in a stir-fry, sauteing, or even braising or blanching them.

Fruit that is spoiling makes great smoothies. Leftover rice is perfect for fried rice: "All you need is onion, eggs, some bacon and soy."

When it comes to food, revisiting old values such as moderation and thrift won't just save you money: it will also make a real difference to the environment. "In today's world, there has become a real disconnect between the food we buy and the impact it has on the environment when we waste it," Kwong says. "We need to change that."

How to avoid leftovers

When shopping, make a list and stick to it. Never shop hungry.
Apart from eggs, many things can be eaten after their "best before" date.
Freeze leftovers rather than let them go off in the fridge.
Get creative: soft avocados become guacamole, while old fruit becomes jam, juice or smoothies. For recipe ideas, see lovefoodhatewaste.comor wastedfood.com.
Cook in bulk. Cook twice as much as you need and freeze the extra portions. This will use ingredients that might otherwise be left over.
Learn what a portion is so you don't unintentionally overcook: an average portion of rice for an adult is 50g (or a quarter of a mug); for pasta it is 100g.

COMPOSTING

Even the most efficient kitchen will produce some waste, particularly if you use lots of fresh produce.
However, plate scrapings and leftovers that are beyond rescue should not be thrown in the bin; instead, start a compost heap. Virtually anything can be composted, from fruit and vegies to bread and tea bags. Meat, dairy, fat, grease, oil or lard should be avoided.

After a couple of months, your food scraps become a fantastic soil dressing.

[partially sourced from Qld Country Life]

How Will Food Production Change over the Next 25 Years?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7795652.stm

This link will take you to a recent article on food production systems and the cry for a more efficient way of producing food. It is uk centric, but does have some relevance world wide. I am not sure that some of the claims regarding environmental damage and similar issues are as clear cut as the passing remarks indicate.

Cities require huge volumes of food to be transported into and through them. With Asia about to develop even more mega cities [ 9 million and up population], this situation is about to get a lot worse. The sheer logistics of providing food for those cities is mind blowing. If you have ever crossed the causeway between Singapore and Johore Bahru and noted the lines of trucks carrying food, that gives an idea of the logistical problems of feeding a city, in this case Singapore that has effectively outsourced ALL food production.

Two recent Australian ventures are tackling some of these issues by building monstrous greenhouses, for year round production, essentially hydroponically, or close to that by various soilless cultural options. One is in the New England area - 20 ha of tomatoes - year round, and the other announced last week will be on the South Coast near Sydney in an even larger operation through a joint Dutch / Australian venture. These sophisticated growing systems have superior management of water, compost, plants , disease and nutrition and aim to reduce growing costs while enhancing environmental performance. Both rely on Australia's abundant sunshine which allows year round production. Both are on major link roads to metropolitan areas, with excellent transport connections.

Some Australian agricultural science operatives have proposed green roof and wall systems for FOOD production, not just for carbon dioxide capture and heat reduction on the inevitable concrete surface, using a few ornamentals. The food production option has a huge amount of merit, as does the revival of the household veggie patch, which was common in the pre 1970s periods in many suburban yards - world wide.

There is a need to also get real about form and function in the food we choose and eat. It might be nice to consider that every carrot must be equal in size, shape and colour......but does it always matter? In some cases it might....odd shapes can hide disease at times, but in most cases it is IRRELEVANT to taste. Having a few less than perfect forms means far less wastage of produce to meet unrealistic at times consumer demands. Unless they will pay enormous prices - a bit like the high priced "perfect" fruit used for Japanese gifts.

While the article referred to above makes a low key plea for organic production, the reality is that certified organic production will NOT produce enough to feed the masses. A recent article on the "Politics of Food" by an Oxford professor debunks that myth. But we will have to do more with organic residuals - compost manures and related materials, as that is where many of the residual nutrients finish up, and those nutrients can be reused to grow additional food. Getting them back to the production areas is an issue in itself, unless production areas change. In Australia the vineyards have made enormous progress in use of efficient watering systems, organic compost and semi organic production - saving money and doing it better.

On this issue of food availability, it is also noted that the worlds food deficit areas are mostly where the abject poverty and malnutrition occurs. And the Politics of Food book, rightly infers that producing more in those areas, with more science and even a good dose of GM crops, and solving a few conflicts would aid that issue enormously.

Subtly, food production areas are changing in Australia, with poultry production relocating away from outer metropolitan city areas back to rural areas closer to the production areas for grain, and processing is moving too, to where the birds are grown. It is cheaper to produce both eggs and poultry in those areas close to grain areas and move the finished product. Moreover, the residuals are being used on land around the poultry production areas to grow hay and other crops. Sensible thinking.

We in Australia do not have the monster cities of Europe, Asia or the Americas, and suitable agricultural land is reasonably available, except that many of the great horticultural areas with good soils close to major cities are being converted to land for houses. That has been happening for many years. And it may not be stoppable. In Australia availability of water may be an issue, although treated effluent is potentially suitable for some horticultural uses eg open space irrigation, even to be able to free better water for food production. Do you realise that Sydney, developed when a single use of stored dam water was acceptable, places about 90% of the cities effluent into the adjacent ocean, although that is being reduced - albeit quite slowly.

But we as a society need to think through these type of choices. If regular food production is forced further away from consumers, will it be come too expensive? You cannot grow mangoes in Melbourne; they will always need to be transported from production areas in the tropics. That inherently makes them costly in Melbourne.

As more Australians live in the tropics however, a diet change to locally grown produce might be a good option. That might mean asian vegetables - and some are very good- rather than the usual temperate peas, parsnips and potatoes. And all of the last three will always be imported to the Australian tropics - we do not have a highland area nearby to grow them although some may argue the Atherton Tableland might fit - but not really high enough.

Think of your choices......

Milk Company Manager in Court

While now many months after the events in late 2008, a recent short newspaper article indicated that the woman who was the Managing Director of Sanlu - the major milk company involved in the problems - has been in court.

Information available so far indicates she knew of the problem several months before advice went to the Chinese government.

There is potential for her to be executed if found guilty.

That will not bring back the dead children, however.

The Politics of Food [and Agriculture]

A recent article that was reproduced in The Australian Financial Review in the Review section last Friday [ November 14] makes for interesting reading for anyone involved with agriculture and food production.

It was written by an eminent professor of economics at Oxford, so one could expect a fair bit of credence.

In the article he literally takes apart the spurious arguments over current thinking about food production and modern agriculture, and makes a seriously compelling case to jolt western civilisation out of the current complacency over world food production. Intertwined with this is a demolition of the current false thinking about GM crops, organic production and in which he pushes hard for some serious effort at improving food production in especially Africa. And of course he also berates the false and distorting subsidies given to agriculture in both Europe and the US.

Not too much gets away free.

BUT...........it is an excellent read and he makes some compelling issues.

The original full article is here -
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001faessay87605/paul-collier/the-politics-of-hunger.html
and it is definitely worth a read if you are even remotely interested in a role for modern agriculture.

As he sees it, agriculture in a number of countries is the industry to be in. Being an agricultural scientist, I would agree.

Free Range Eggs are not What They're Cracked Up to Be

Almost a quarter of all eggs sold now are laid by free-range hens — even though they cost up to four times as much as cage eggs and their claims to superior taste and nutritional benefits are debatable.

Consumers are paying up to $9.50 a dozen for free-range eggs — about $6 more than the retail price of a dozen cage eggs, according to the Australian Egg Corporation. Despite the cost, consumption has steadily risen over the past decade and now 22pc — or nearly 45 million dozen — of all egg sales are free range. The corporation — which represents all egg producers — said some people opted for free-range eggs because of animal welfare concerns, but customer feedback showed most were prepared to pay extra for the eggs because they believed they were more nutritious, better for health and better tasting.

However, corporation spokeswoman Jacqueline Baptista said research had shown free-range eggs were no different from those laid by caged hens. "Our extensive research has shown there is no significant difference in nutrition or taste between both types of eggs," she said. "Consumer feedback is that some people buy them for the welfare aspect of hens but we believe that it is animal husbandry practice that determines welfare, rather than the actual production methods farmers use for their eggs."

Ms Baptista said caged hens often had better disease controls and protection from predators.

But the RSPCA argues that battery hens suffer from confinement in cages which do not allow them space to exercise or to carry out behaviours such as wing flapping, dust bathing and foraging.

Free-range farmers say consumers believe it is worth paying more to know the eggs have come from "contented hens that range freely during daylight hours over natural sunny pastures" and return to sheds at night for roosting and laying.

But the research is now in.......there is no difference in quality. Why pay more, especially when the middle man or retailer is really the one that profits, not the farmers.

[partially sourced from Australian Egg Corporation media release]