The Food Environment

Do Genetically Engineered Foods Really Need to Be Regulated Less?

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

(Note: This article was originally published on the Johns Hopkins Center For A Livable Future's Blog)

Nina Federoff, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and professor at Penn State University penned an Opinion piece in the New York Times last week asking for less regulation of genetically engineered (GE) crops.  Professor Federoff would like to see more grant money available for research and more scientists working on the development of GE foods, but states in her article, that the regulatory bars of the EPA, USDA, and FDA are set to high and are stifling scientists from making innovations.

Ignoring the rest of her argument that GE seeds dramatically improve crop yields (they don’t and in fact agroecological farming methods are not only better for the environment but better for yields), reduce the use of chemicals (they don’t, pesticide use has increased since the introduction of GE crops in the US), improve the lives of Farmers (not in India or the US), and have not been shown to cause harm to the environment (she forgot about the development of superweeds, pollution of waters, and harm to soil), lets focus on her idea that regulations are too complicated and stringent.  As you will see, this is simply not the case.  In fact, regulations may be too lax, as they allow corporations driven by profit, not protecting public health, to drive the research or lack their of, to demonstrate safety and as well explained in many of the above articles, the US experience with GM crops has indeed led to environmental problems.

This Week's Food News

Here are a few links to some interesting news about the Food Environment that happened this week.

Schools Restore Fresh Cooking to the Cafeteria.  The NY Times reports on how one school district in Colorado, in which 60% of their students are on free or reduced lunch are going to be cooking school meals from scratch.  Unlike what you might have seen on Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, the staff at these cafeterias is excited for the change and its actually going to cost less to cook healthier food from scratch.

More farmers markets mean more jobs.  Tom Laskawy of Grist writes about the release of USDA statistics that showed a 17% increase in the number of Famer’s markets over the past year and a new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that suggest growing local agriculture will result in new jobs and less unemployment.

An important and often neglected component of our food system are the people that harvest our fruits and vegetables.  Many of these people are undocumented immigrants and/or are treated poorly.  The low wages and poor working conditions that these workers endure help keep the price of industrial food low.  (For more on this check out the Coalition of Imokalee Workers)  In this weeks NY Times “Room for Debate”  6 authors discuss the topic-Could Farms Survive Without Illegal Labor? 

Chicken, Now Available with Less Poison

By Michael Crupain, MD, MPH

(Note:  This Article was originally published in the American College of Preventive Medicine Resident Physician Newsletter)

Many people would probably be surprised to find out that arsenic, the metalloid element sometimes referred to as “the king of poisons”, has been a common additive to chicken feed for over 60 years.  Organic arsenic is the active component in Roxarsone, a drug that is fed to birds in order to speed growth, kill parasites, and improve the cosmetic appearance of their meat.  It is estimated that about 2 million pounds of Roxarsone are fed to conventionally raised chickens each year and according to one industry representative 88% of all chickens receive the drug. 

As of July 8, 2011, however, Pfizer the maker of Roxarsone, has voluntarily suspended sales of the drug.   This moves comes on the heels of an FDA study in which increased levels of inorganic arsenic were detected in the livers of chickens fed Roxarsone.