Discussion: Genetically Modified Crops

Genetically Modified Crops.

These 3 words in the same sentence get the strongest reaction out of people. The obvious reason is that there are those who instantly fear them: there are weird substances being put in the foods, lots of chemicals that can endanger and poison us! And then there's the unobvious: frustration and anger at an ignorant populace that refuses to acknowledge that GM crops are the best answer for securing our food supply and possibly ending world hunger!

The more vocal, obvious, former crowd always has leverage in the forms of news stories that prove we are eating dangerous chemicals that endanger our children or that show GM crops will be the doom of the world's poorest. I want to focus on that second article in particular, as it links back to what I was talking about in my discussion piece about pesticides. That second article looks at the various tragedies in Paraguay as a result of the rapid and vicious expansion of GM soy fields there; it is a sad picture of terrible regulation, chemical misuse, environmental distruction, lack of proper legal protection for the vulnerable and corruption. However, the article is never blaming the actual GM crop; as ever, these tragedies are the result of human greed and misuse (and lack of empathy with their community). Even more reason to stamp out GM crops, so the alarmists would claim.

But it's articles like this that make people lodge pesticides and GM foods together in a messy clump, without prying the two apart and investigating closely. Separating the elements and investigating closely is precisely what a good scientist does. But what a good scientist, who wishes to proclaim the (possible) virtues of GM crops, doesn't understand, is that those who don't properly understand how science works hear the terms 'genetically modified/engineered/altered/produced' and instantly conjure up an image of Resident Evil-style monsters. Sad but true.

Now if that article explaining the situation in Paraguay was a straight forward one saying: "This innocent kidney bean, which has been genetically altered but grown organically, was launched as a brand new product yesterday and was hailed as a great stride forward in biochemical science. However, when consumed by a healthy family, said family died the next day." Well then, yes! GM products the world over would be classed as Satan's spawn and banned like no tomorrow. Except that has never happened. In fact, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if you at least chuckled at my crappy faux-newspaper report.

I found this helpful article that summarises both the pros and cons of GM crops without taking a side. The key reasons why many in the scientific community believe this avenue of crop-growing should at the very least be investigated are that they can be grown in non-arable areas (erego reducing the impact of droughts) and less or no pesticides can be used to grow them. Such reasons make me a tentative supporter of GM crops, but don't get me wrong. Such products need to be rigorously tested, properly researched, highly regulated and internationally licensed before being made available on the market. It is even more important that these stringent guidelines are followed and enforced in our day and age, since this technology is still very new and young and we certainly don't want a zombie apocalypse brought about by a careless idiot.

Also, just because GM versions of crops become available on the market, doesn't mean organic will stop being profitable or popular.

Discussion: The problem with pesticides

If you read my discussion piece from 2 days ago, you'd notice the comment my brother made. I thank him for pointing out why it is I'm specifically separating the topics of crops grown with chemical assistance and genetically-modified crops. What he was talking about isn't necessarily how most eco-warriors regard GM food...of any kind.

So, pesticides. Why are they used? They began to be used when farmers realised they could keep away weeds, bugs and pests with little effort and have a stronger crop yield. So pesticides double up as fertilisers in a weird way. Fair enough. A quick history of the chemical DDT, found at the top of this quick list of pesticides, pretty much sums up the general attitudes towards pesticides.

But they're still being used. The question is why. Is it because manufacturers and users have no empathy for others in their society? Do they have little care about the disappearing bees and the massive effect this will have on most ecosystems? As is always the case with us silly humans, I don't think the answer is so black and white.

Since chemical fertilisers are a man-made manufacture, which happen to be consumed by humans, they need to be rigorously tested and registered as safe before being sold on the wider market. The majority are. So the divide between those that do or don't use such products doesn't actually illustrate a divide between the evil agricultural corporations and the saintly organic farmers, it's rather that there are people who feel that a tiny amount of poison doesn't do anyone any harm while there are others who would rather not ingest any at all. I'm more in the latter camp, but I've noticed with my buying habits that I seem to prioritise the shortest distance a food product has travelled rather than the method with which it was grown. That I find interesting in itself.

This does raise another question: if various societies wish to know whether a product has been organically produced or if it is filled with sugar and fat, why don't products display information regarding which chemicals were used in their production? Or would that be too complicated?

Mind you, there are additional problems with using chemicals in crop production, not just limited to how safe their ingestion is. The article I've already mentioned does briefly skim over the wider problems and spread of such chemicals: they can remain in soil for a long time thus slowly poisoning soil used for crops, they spread through natural waterways and within creatures, they infect various creatures that ingest them... these genuine consequences make chemical products harder to defend.

Such products are even more difficult to defend when they have directly harmed humans. Click on this link and scroll down to "It's safer in a hive". What makes the various stories of being damaged by reckless chemical use even more tragic is that they highlight a lack of stringency in regulations of such products. Well...back in 2004 at least, but I haven't heard of any new laws strengthening these regulations in the UK. I mean, really? You're not obliged to warn those nearby if you're using chemicals with possibly damaging effects?

Discussion: The Fruit and Veg trade isn't exactly innocent

There is argument upon argument as to why the meat, seafood and dairy trades are not ethical. I briefly mentioned the land-loss scenario in my introduction video to this blog, which is also linked to the 'lots of fuel is wasted transporting such products for thousands of miles before they reach their destination' statement. There are also other issues linked with such trades, such as diseases spreading into natural waters from fish farms (fish factory farms more like, since the fish are kept crammed so close together and are highly treated with drugs to combat common infections), as well as the overuse of chemicals in the treatment of animals in factory farms. That was how Swine Flu evolved.

So there are people out there who believe that our food supply, health and environment would be better safeguarded if meat, seafood and dairy were cut out entirely. But that would ignore the various problems affecting the fruit and veg trades. Not to mention the chocolate trades, but there have been tons about those so I really don't feel the need to elaborate on them.

We can now enjoy eating summer fruits all year round because of warmer countries exporting their fruits. This not only means more demand for products to be eaten out of season, but more fuel on transport and there is the question of whether such products meet correct industry standards. This then ties into organic vs 'unnatural' products, which tend to have GM and pesticide-grown products lumped together. It also ties into more developed countries not paying enough attention to a sensible agricultural policy at home, meaning a stronger dependence on imports (*cough* UK *cough*).

As you can see, even looking at fruit and veg trades in particular opens a massive can of worms. So that will be the topic I'll stick with for the next couple of discussions...

Recipe: Cauliflower and Leek Auflauf

The 3rd day in a row, in which I've uploaded a recipe. I'm going to have to seriously work on my discussion pieces, the column is looking pretty small.

Anyway, this recipe is a German one and one that I discovered during my year spent studying at Heidelberg. It's an oven bake, in which you can put anything you want. The key thing all Auflauf recipes have in common, is that either potato or pasta is utilised as the core ingredient, while you're also almost always (alliteration!!!) using cheese. That's right, I'm using my loophole again. That's the problem with traditional non-meat European recipes, they almost always demand the use of some product derived from milk. In theory, you can make the recipe I'm about to share suitable for vegans by using soy cheese, but I don't know where/how to get any in the Czech Republic. I'm also uncertain if that would work (does soy cheese even taste nice?).

INGREDIENTS

Pasta (any kind)

Cauliflower and/or Broccoli

Leek

slices of Edam Cheese

Parsley

Step 1: Take the glass oven/roasting dish that you will be using and pour out the pasta. You don't want to fill the dish with pasta, just pour out enough pasta so that it covers the bottom. Once you have measured out the amount of pasta you will need, pour all of it into the saucepan.

Step 2: As much as you can, slice the cauliflower and/or broccoli but only cut the amount you will need. Once that is done, add the vegetable 'slices' to the same saucepan as the pasta. Fill with water and set to boil.

Step 3: Chop up the leek, add the pieces to a steamer and place on top of the saucepan. All contents should need roughly 10 minutes to boil but stir frequently in the meantime to make sure. Just before you're ready to add these ingredients to the roasting dish, pour the leeks into the boiling water to make sure they're soft enough.

Step 4: While the pasta and veggies are boiling, grease the roasting dish. Once the roasting dish is prepared and the ingredients are nearly ready, pre-heat the oven to 175˚C or gas mark 5 (I think).

Step 5: Once the boiled ingredients are ready, drain the water away. Put all of them into the roasting dish, spreading them so that the oven bake will be (mostly) even.

Step 6: Cover the ingredients with sheets of Edam cheese. Over the cheese, sprinkle with parsley. Place the dish in the oven and leave to cook for roughly 15 minutes. You know it is done when the cheese has completely molded onto its contents.