Dr. Evil is For Genetic Engineering!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Dec 06, 2010 at 22:19:44 PM PST

That said, I would have NEVER thought they'd take on the issue of genetically engineered crops in Africa. If there is one thing I'm absolutely sure about, it's that they don't give a shit about starving people in Africa. But they do, perhaps, give a shit about the financial well-being and public acceptance of major biotech corporations. They are probably paid handsomely to give a shit about that, although we will likely never know since they don't disclose their funders.

Their article, if you can call it that, touts a recent "independent study" that was led by Harvard University professor Calestous Juma. (As you might have guessed, Robert Paarlberg was among those who worked on this project.) I've posted the press release sent around by the study authors below. Its headline is "Africa Can Feed Itself Within a Generation" and it calls for increased use of genetic engineering and other new technology, such as nanotechnology.

If you read my recent review and summary of the book Seeds of Famine, you know that the Sahel region of West Africa was fairly food secure until the period of French occupation (which lasted until the 1960's), during which time the French forced the local people to destroy their environment, including their farmland and pastures, and pushed many people onto land that was unsuitable for food production. The result was a major famine from 1968-1974. This book is now 30 years old, but it made many points that seemed worth following up on.

From there, I began researching other parts of Africa. Did the same thing happen elsewhere? I am far from having the answers yet, but I had the good fortune of running into a few acquaintances this past weekend - a woman who served in the Peace Corps in Kenya and her husband, a Kenyan. I brought up the topic of the impact that Europe's conquest of Africa had on food security in Kenya and they gave me an earful.

The first thing they brought up was quite familiar to me: the best land in Kenya is used for growing commercial crops for export. Crops like tea, coffee, and sugar. Small wonder why Kenya, a former British colony, would be a major producer of tea and sugar. Subsistence farmers are pushed to more marginal lands. This seems to me to be a constant around the world, that subsistence farmers are pushed to marginal lands.

Then, they brought up something else: the Nile Waters Agreement. In 1929, Britain (on behalf of Sudan) signed a treaty with Egypt governing the water in the Nile. Most other countries along the Nile (like Kenya) did not exist yet. And they didn't sign the treaty. Unfortunately, they are still "bound" by this treat (says who, you gotta wonder... apparently "the Egyptian military, that's who" is the answer) and thus cannot do ANYTHING that effects water levels in the Nile. That means that Kenya cannot touch the water in Lake Victoria, an enormous lake that it shares with Tanzania and Uganda.

This agreement was renegotiated and renamed the Nile Waters Treaty in 1959, but still only split the water between Sudan and Egypt, with Egypt getting the vast majority. If Kenya were able to use the water from Lake Victoria for irrigation, many of its food issues would be taken care of. Instead, that water goes to grow Egyptian cotton, because of a treaty Kenya never signed.

What I've seen in my travels thus far is that the key word in the phrase "food justice" is justice. Is it fair that the rich and powerful control the best land and the poor and hungry get the worst? Is it fair that a country would give priority to growing to export crops over feeding its own population? Of course, life isn't fair. But we are trying to solve this problem of incredible injustice by finding some agricultural silver bullet that would magically make small plots of marginal lands sprout record amounts of food, and that's ridiculous.

If you're committed to everyone in the world eating, then you need to look at the big picture. According to the World Food Program's estimates, some 4.7 million Kenyans are hungry (1.2 million in rural areas, and 3.5 million in cities). Meanwhile, Kenya was the top tea exporter (by quantity) in the world in 2008, according to the FAO. That year, they also exported 41,649 tonnes of coffee. So what are we more committed to? Letting the invisible hand do what it does and letting the chips fall as they may, or making sure everyone eats? (I'm not saying I have all of the answers, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it.)

What Is Food Independence?

by: Jill Richardson

Sat Jul 04, 2009 at 14:35:56 PM PDT

The very sad truth is that we don't get to break the laws of Mother Nature. Think of her like any other parent who says "As long as you're in my house, you have to live by my rules!" Thus - we humans can't fly, even if we jump off our roofs and flap our arms. The law of gravity will get us. And we have to follow a whole bunch of food-related rules as well. Fortunately, if we do it right, we can enjoy ourselves within the bounds set by Mother Nature.

An occasional tiramisu is OK (thank goodness!). We're offered an incredibly wide range of foods, so its OK if you never want to eat broccoli again, just like President George H.W. Bush. If you hate it - don't eat it. But if that's the case, then you probably oughta look into other cruciferous veggies that are more appealing to you, or perhaps find a way to prepare them that you enjoy. And an awful lot of healthy foods are actually quite tasty (ripe strawberries, watermelon, cocoa, avocados... mmm).

That said, if you declare the ultimate food freedom and indulge in whatever you want, whenever you want, Mother Nature is going to punish you by restricting another sort of freedom: your health.

The best case scenario is that you'll need to take prescription drugs to cope with your health problems for the rest of your life. That might cost a lot and make it harder for you to get insurance, but it's not a huge deal in the scheme of things. But you might end up with a body that cannot enjoy the activities it once could, and all of the emotional anguish that goes along with being trapped in a body that makes you unhappy. Or, you might end up with expensive medical procedures and scary incidents that land you in the hospital. Worst of all, your life of food freedom might end at too young an age because your body simply could not handle all of that freedom.

I don't want to be a downer on this Fourth of July, but I'd much prefer to see us proclaim our freedom from poor health instead of our freedom to eat whatever the hell we want. An all-tiramisu diet might be enjoyable, but it's not worth the consequences.

The Food Inc Backlash

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jun 05, 2009 at 23:40:50 PM PDT

"Food Inc." contains an astonishing number of half-truths, errors and omissions. By clicking on the topics below you can learn more about issues raised by the film that concern you.

Sampler Platter 05.12.09

by: Jill Richardson

Tue May 12, 2009 at 04:47:54 AM PDT

• A Charlottesville, VA paper writes about the virtues of their new grocery store, built with eco-friendly materials and practices. So, to honor the eco-friendliness of it, the author provides a list of items not to buy in the store. As noted, that eliminates most of the products. Which means they could have made the building MUCH smaller and thus MORE eco-friendly.

• Scientists found a new way of making herbicide resistant plants. It's still GMO, but the gene changes are less significant than current methods used to make herbicide resistant GMOs. My thoughts? They are sooo missing the point. It's nice that they found a new way to do it, but haven't they heard about the herbicide-resistant weeds that have been popping up lately? The GMO techno-fixes are short term, at best.

• Here's the latest from the evil Center for Corporate Front Groups Consumer Freedom: They accuse Dr. David Kessler of "conspiracy theories" because he exposed how the food industry intentionally leads consumers to overeat. Dr. Kessler, if CCF is pissed off at you, then you know you're on the right track.

• From Alternet: Agriculture is One of the Most Polluting and Dangerous Industries

• Fast food is why you're rich. No, not because you eat McDonalds. Because you literally eat fast. An analysis of a number of different countries found that the faster you eat, the fatter you are - and the richer you are. Is it worth it? I'd still rather be French.

• A new study says that virtually all of our weight gain is explained by our diets and exercise plays less of a role. Interesting.

• Check out Neighborhood Fruit, a site that shows maps of major cities and the locations of fruit trees. In other words, FREE FRUIT! Currently available are Seattle, San Francisco, and LA. Oh please, somebody, put San Diego on that website so I can start cashing in!

• New York State might get a Prop 2! If passed, the bill A08163 would essentially do the same thing as California's Prop 2, banning the cruelest practices for veal calves, breeding sows, and egg laying hens.

A Corporate Shill's Viewpoint on New York's War on Salt

by: Jill Richardson

Sun May 03, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 14:16:59 PM PDT

In this episode, it's a he-said-she-said match between a Professor of Nutrition at UNC (Barry M. Popkin) and David Marosko of Big Food front group CCF.

Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is "stretching the truth beyond recognition."

"Eating less meat isn't going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It's not gonna make a difference," he said.

Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom's assertions, said he stood by his claims.

"This is what the food industry always does - just like the tobacco industry," he said. "They obfuscate without ever looking at facts."

So who's right? I know the answer, but not because the New York Times provided it along with any information backing up the conclusion. This is a lot like election coverage that focuses on polls without ever educating the public about either candidate's platform. NYT, you can do better.

Center for Consumer Freedom Sends Michael Pollan Their Rules

by: Jill Richardson

Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Recently, Michael Pollan asked readers for their food rules. I can give you my #1 rule easily: I won't eat anything if I can't identify a plant or an animal (preferably a plant) that it came from. And high fructose corn syrup doesn't count even though I know it came from corn. But CCF decided they would have a laugh and send THEIR food rules in to Michael Pollan. I've included them below, along with 9 other food rules of my own.

Is the Chicago Tribune the New Corporate Mouthpiece?

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 14:15:18 PM PST

There are two important things a reader of this op end should know. One is the background of the Center for Consumer Freedom. Once you know that, the "facts" cited in the op ed are almost secondary, but just for the sake of setting the record straight, the second are the real facts and how they stack up against the fake ones that CCF likes to use.

The Center for Consumer Freedom Thinks Your Diet Sucks

by: Jill Richardson

Thu Feb 19, 2009 at 11:06:23 AM PST

Op ed #1 reminds all of us overweight Americans (yup, me too) that we can still have our hamburgers and sodas so long as we take a walk after dinner. It's all about energy balance. That's a classic junk food industry talking point. Go ahead, indulge. Eat whatever you want! Just remember to work out afterward.

Oh My God, Who Let a VEGETARIAN in the WHITE HOUSE!!!

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 11:50:40 AM PST

Sunstein is best known for his balanced views between government regulations and cost-benefit analysis and for his theory of behavioral economics and he is widely considered to be a great choice for the office.

Oh, and Sunstein is a vegetarian. What??? I am sorry but disqualifying somebody for public office because they are veggie is about as stupid as disqualifying them because they are black! And in our new "post-racial" America, I don't think we're interested in doing that anymore. May the best man (or woman) for the office get the job. Besides, the country is much better off with this veggie in power than it was with the group of vegetables who are leaving office this week.

The Real Dirt on Rick Berman

by: Jill Richardson

Fri Jan 16, 2009 at 00:10:38 AM PST

CCF Leaves a Lump of Coal in Our Collective Stocking

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM PST

In today's litigious society, serving baked goods to the jolly old fat man could set you up for a very un-merry obesity lawsuit.

So before he wolfs down the cookies left by the fireplace on Christmas Eve, the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) suggests demanding that Kris Kringle sign a "Christmas Cookie Liability and Indemnification Agreement."

The tongue-in-cheek liability waiver includes an agreement that Santa won't haul you into court for "failure to provide nutrition information and a list of ingredients," or "failure to caution of the potential for overeating because cookies taste 'yummy' and are provided at no cost," among other things.

You'll find the liability waiver at: www.consumerfreedom.com/downloads/promotional/2008_christmas_cookie_waiver.pdf

What the article doesn't say is that Santa's dietary habits are deadly. A diet of milk and cookies alone is a fast track to obesity, heart disease, diabetes, and basically death. Is it Santa's fault that he eats such junk, or should he sue? In most cases, it's probably Santa's own fault. But when the legislative and executive branches do not keep consumers safe from predatory corporations, the courts are all we have left to hold those who wrong us accountable.

Can The Food Industry Solve Our Obesity Crisis?

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Nov 17, 2008 at 11:37:24 AM PST

Why would a food company care about the health of society? Isn't a food company's primary goal to make profits for their shareholders? Of course it is, and that is fine. The problem is that the most healthful foods - unprocessed vegetables, fruits and grains - are not nearly as profitable as highly refined and processed foods. This fact makes the industry's claims to promote health somewhat dubious.

To make a short story long, please read the fantastic book Appetite for Profit by Michele Simon (and for dessert, I recommend Food Politics by Marion Nestle). For some brief examples on how the food industry undermines nutrition from this article, see below.

Center for Consumer Freedom: Not a Valid Source

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Oct 21, 2008 at 14:00:00 PM PDT

From The Boston Herald: Newburyport Bans Junk Food In Schools

The crackdown on sweets has left a sour taste in some mouths.

"It's irresponsible for government to attempt to legislate us into being thinner and healthier," said J. Justin Wilson, senior research analyst at the Center for Consumer Freedom.

Below: More CCF bullshit and my letters to the editor requesting that CCF no longer be quoted. If you want to express a corporate viewpoint, please go straight to McDonald's so everyone understands that it's a corporate viewpoint.

Rick Berman on The Colbert Report (Not New, But Funny)

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Sep 29, 2008 at 12:00:00 PM PDT