Category: Agriculture

Redneck Locavores, Organic Onions and the Environment

You might be a redneck locavore if you refer to the squirrels in your yard as “free range.”

One of the fastest growing environmental fads is the push to cut “food miles,” and transportation-related carbon emissions, by buying locally grown food. Those who adhere to this philosophy, known as “locavores,” believe that buying food from local farms reduces the environmental impact by reducing the amount of fuel necessary to transport the food. In Seattle, one locavore has taken this idea to an extreme: eating squirrels she traps in her yard.

A retired “environmental analyst” told the Seattle Times she couldn’t eat prime rib without guilt and that eating squirrels is one way she is “trying to quiet her conscience.”

She doesn’t explain what is troubling her conscience, but given the context of the argument, we can only assume the guilt is the assumed environmental impact of eating food shipped from other parts of the country. Studies have shown again and again, however, that focusing only on the final distance that food travels is misleading.

On the Freakonomics blog, Steve Sexton notes that “local food consumers should understand that they aren’t necessarily buying something that helps the planet.” The reason is simple: if you grow food where it isn’t suited, the additional energy to grow the food more than outweighs the small savings in transportation. Sexton cites research that shows “Transportation only accounts for 11 percent of the carbon embodied in food anyway, according to a 2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon; 83 percent comes from production.” Focusing on the 11 percent and ignoring the 83 percent isn’t a good way to reduce resource use.

Others argue that even if the environmental benefit isn’t significant, local food tastes better. When you are reduced to eating squirrel, that argument starts to sound a little hollow.

As an aside, you might be a redneck locavore if you traded your washing machine for a clothes line that hold four pairs of jeans and three squirrels.

Seattle’s squirrel-eating locavores are one more bit of evidence that environmental ideology is as much about self image as the environment. Now, even The Onion (America’s Finest News Source) is indicating that just because you call something “green” doesn’t mean it is. In its “American Voices” section, The Onion asks “As they ramp up production to meet the demands of a growing market, some organic farms are coming under scrutiny for agricultural practices that may do more harm to the land than good. What do you think?” The answers are, in true Onion style, silly (“This is precisely why I’ve stuck all these years to synthetic carrots.”). The genius of The Onion is to convey reality in a humorous way. Questioning organic food wouldn’t work unless the topic had the ring of truth.

Obviously, not everyone who cares about the environment is going to end up as an urban, squirrel-eating, redneck locavore. But when you’ve reached the point you are creating recipes for “risotto di roentia” and are being mocked by The Onion, you might want to think about whether you are on the right track.

By the way, you might be a redneck locavore if you damage your Prius trying to hit a squirrel.

Biotech ruling a set-back for sound science and progress in the worldwide war on hunger

Two important energy/environmental policy decisions were made yesterday that have serious implications both geopolitically and in the U.S.  One of the decisions – the one that got all the media attention – was President Obama’s choice to sink domestic offshore oil production and force America further into subservience and abject dependence on foreign oil supplies.  I’ve written briefly already about why an offshore moratorium is wrongheaded for a variety of reasons.  I have also written about the value, economic, national security and environmental, of domestic offshore oil production.  This topic will not detain me further here.

I want to write about the second decision; the one that flew largely under the radar.  A Federal court on Tuesday ordered the Monsanto to plow up and destroy its entire stock of genetically modified sugar beets.  The beets had been approved for use in 1995.  The action by this activist judge is the first court ordered destruction of a biotech crop. 

Sugar beets account for more than half of the nation’s sugar supply, and Monsanto’s Roundup Ready beets have been popular with farmers as they have been genetically altered to withstand sprayings of the chemical herbicide Roundup, making weed management easier for producers.

 Despite claims to the contrary, this judge reached outside U.S. law to European shores where biotech policy is ruled by the parsimonious “precautionary principle:” which basically says that no novel product or method of production should be put into use or circulation until it can be shown to pose no harm to humans or the environment.  This principle does not foster progress and innovation but rather, unreflectively supports the status quo, stagnation and decline.  The judge based his decision environmentalist’s claims that the use of the crop might lead to the production of super weeds, increased pesticide use and pose a threat of contamination to organic beets.  These same fears were raised before the USDA when it approved the beets and have been raised in an effort to halt the development, testing and introduction of every previous genetically altered crop.  Despite widespread use, none of these crops have ever been shown to pose unusual threats to human health or the environment. 

 U.S. law does not enshrine the precautionary principle but rather treats GMO crops like conventionally bred new varieties.  Whether or not they are allowed into the market or halted is supposed to be based upon a rational assessment of the types of harms that might be posed by the crop, the likelihood that such harms might materialize, and a balancing of the relative benefits and costs.  In other words GMO policies are supposed to be informed and driven by the application of sound science and careful weighing of the human and environmental benefits from the crop against the reasonably anticipated harms.  This judge has reversed the standard. 

 This action throws a monkey wrench into the burgeoning biotech product industry – as the same standard could now be applied by this and other courts to other crops whether in use or development and to pharmaceuticals and other products that use genetic engineering.  The implications of this ruling for the environment, the worlds hungry, and the U.S. economy are profound and dire.

GM Fish: It’s What’s for Dinner!

In an article in Heartland’s Environment & Climate News I detail the FDA’s long overdue approval of the first genetically modified animal for human consumption — the Aquabounty Salmon.  After ten years of development, testing, paperwork, hearings, etc… the FDA found that the salmon was safe for human consumption and posed no threat to the environment.