Rising prices pushes people towards genetically modified foods

There is nothing like cash to help focus the mind.

While in Britain, I saw first hand the public distrust of Frankenfoods, or genetically modified crops. The continent was much more suspicious than Britain about the foods, but there were some outspoken critics (like Prince Charles) in Britain as well. I was doubly mortified when some African countries started to reject genetically modified donations, because they reasonably assumed that what was bad for Europeans is bad for Africans. However, there is no indication that genetically modified foods are harmful, and while Europe is rich enough to reject genetically modified crops, Africa is not, and rejection of the crops yields starvation.

Fast forward to the food crisis of today, and an article in the New York Times shows that with grain prices doubling and tripling, the less expensive genetically modified grains are gaining in popularity, or at least objections to them are declining. I am pleased to see that irrational fears fall away when cash is at stake.

The key word there is irrational. No one has shown popular genetically modified organisms to be harmful, and they can help feed multitudes more. To the people who object because we are "playing god," that ship has sailed. Wheat is the most crossbred organism in existence, not because we've turned our microscopes at it (indeed, it is one of the more difficult crops in a lab), but because we've been manipulating it for the last six thousand years. We've been doing the same with cattle. Ever seen a cow on a hike in the forest? That isn't natural.

I do hope that this allows people to get past their reservations for the "new."

Eating meat in the world

So, I am a little late commenting on this article from the New York Times, Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler, but I'd like to mention it none the less. I want to discuss it because I am a pot-smoking, hippy, vegetarian liberal. Actually, I am not all those things, but I am a vegetarian, so sometimes I get lumped into political movements in which I don't believe.

In general, I really enjoyed this article. The author presents ample evidence about the environmental impact of consuming meat, and for the most part doesn't use the accusatory tone often associated with PETA or their supporters. I am especially pleased that he doesn't start down the path of "animal rights," or cruelty, as it is such a nebulous and contentious notion that it is dismissed (as I think it ought to be) by most people who are generally sympathetic to notion of environmental degradation due to meat production.

I am also very much in favor of two of the solutions he submits, namely reduction of farm subsidies and better food technology. I don't agree with President Bush on many things, but I support very much his attempts (in the past, at least) to curb agricultural subsidies. These subsidies prevent consumers from seeing the true cost of their foods, and because of the massive lobbying groups supporting particular foods (I am talking to you, corn), situations develop where food is used in crazy and inefficient ways simply because the cost is artificially low (corn-based ethanol to reduce greenhouse gases? Ridiculous!) Though I am a democrat, I hope that a republican president has the will to cut these subsidies. Goodness knows the politicians from my state of Arkansas don't have the gumption. Growing food is something that the developing world, including South and Central America, do very well, and we should let them, and bring down trade tariffs to prevent their cheaper foods from being sold in our markets. The argument that in a crisis we need to be able to produce our own food doesn't quite hold water to me. In a crisis, we could stop eating a bit of the meat we eat and basically be flooded with the extra grain. I'm disappointed that Mike Huckabee has taken this stand in the presidential debates.

Secondly, the author mentions advancing food technology as an option, and I am proud that he does:

Longer term, it no longer seems lunacy to believe in the possibility of “meat without feet” — meat produced in vitro, by growing animal cells in a super-rich nutrient environment before being further manipulated into burgers and steaks.

I am proud the author mentioned this because for many of the hippy vegetarians who shop at the farmers market and whole foods, this is an option they find so distasteful as to be repugnant. However, it is a viable option, and we have continually manipulated nature in order to feed the growing population of humans (by domesticating cows, domesticating wheat, breeding chickens, etc.) It would be morally deficient of us to not develop technology that could help feed people because it doesn't sit right with us.

However, speaking specifically about moral decisions in food production and consumption, I am disappointed with the authors final paragraph:

In fact, Americans are already buying more environmentally friendly products, choosing more sustainably produced meat, eggs and dairy. The number of farmers’ markets has more than doubled in the last 10 years or so, and it has escaped no one’s notice that the organic food market is growing fast. These all represent products that are more expensive but of higher quality.

My problem with this paragraph is that there is an assumption that farmers market and organic food is better for the environment, when there is at least compelling evidence that organic food and farmer's markets are actually worse for the environment. There may be benefits of organic and farmers markets, such as less chemicals for sensitive consumers, but to say it is environmentally better is either nebulous or outright false. To the author's credit, though, he mentions that these specialty and more expensive options for meat hopefully will lead to less consumption, which, considering the epidemic of obesity in our country, would be over all a good thing.