For these articles and more, connect with us on the Nourishing the Planet website!
Don't forget to check us out on Facebook and Twitter! Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
Forward to your friends!
Research in Real Time
Dear Naresh,
For the last two weeks, foodies, farmers, and scientists have been debating the validity of a study released by Stanford University about the nutritional quality of organic produce. The analysis concludes that organic foods—foods grown without pesticides and other agro-chemicals—are not superior in quality to conventionally produced varieties. According to the study, the risk of exposure to pesticides and other harsh chemicals is only negligibly higher in conventional foods. In other words, the study argues that consumers who pay higher prices for the supposed health benefits of organic foods have been wasting their money. But our friends Chuck Benbrook, Dawn Undurraga, and Francis Moore Lappe disagree.
Although the Stanford study claims that there is a 30 percent “risk difference” between organic and conventional foods, Chuck Benbrook, a scientist and former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, finds, “an overall 81 percent lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples”—using Stanford’s data. This discrepancy is the result of the Stanford researchers’ decision to omit certain criterion from their system of analysis, such as the difference between single and multiple pesticide traces (i.e. the difference between an organic apple containing a trace amount of one pesticide, and a conventional apple lathered in a highly-concentrated assortment of different pesticides).
Even if the Stanford analysis were accurate, it wouldn't warrant the “breaking news” media attention it has received. Dawn Undurraga of the Environmental Working Group notes that as a new mom, even a 31 percent difference in pesticide residue is enough to reinforce her preference for organic foods. She reminds us that even using the low Stanford figures, a consumer is five times more likely to ingest pesticides with conventional than with organic varieties—a fact that the mainstream media has completely overlooked.
And Francis Moore Lappe, in a Huffington Post article, reprehends the Stanford scientists for not considering long term studies of organic versus conventional consumption in their analysis (the studies they used ranged from two days to two years). Ms. Lappe notes that the short-term studies used in the research are inadequate for determining the health impacts of pesticide consumption--she says “it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.”
And the Stanford study didn't consider the environmental impacts of organic versus conventional food production. Organic food procurement has a host of benefits, none of which are acknowledged in the report: it contributes to increased biodiversity in the field—more birds and beneficial insects, better soil biota—and to decreased pollution associated with the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. And American farm workers, who have an average lifespan of 49 years, will likely benefit from a decrease in the application of pesticides.
What do you think about the Stanford study and the media attention is has received? Do you think that organic food is healthier? Email me with your thoughts!
All the best,
Danielle Nierenberg
Nourishing the Planet Project Director
Worldwatch Institute
www.nourishingtheplanet.org
Email: dnierenberg@nourishingtheplanet.org
Phone: +1-202-590-1037
P.S. Also please connect with Nourishing the Planet on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube, and Flickr where you will find infographics, quotes, original video, articles, and news that can't be found anywhere else.
Here are some highlights from the week:
Mobile Farming Helps Farmers Save Time, Water, and Electricity
Managing irrigation pumps and water systems is a difficult and costly task for many farmers in developing countries. The amount of time and energy farmers spend watering their crops often compromises time that could otherwise be used for family and community obligations. It also compromises their safety at night, when they are most vulnerable to animal predators. A new innovation from the India based company, Ossian Agro Automation, called Nano Ganesh seeks to transform the way farmers manage their water systems by giving them the freedom to turn pumps on and off, from any location, with their mobile phone.
Benbrook Study on GM Crops and Pesticides
New data from a study carried out by Chuck Benbrook shows that GM crops do not reduce the quantity of pesticides used in their production over time, and crops now considered herbicide-tolerant include corn (Bt corn varieties), soy, and cotton (Bt cotton varities). During 2011, over 16 million farmers worldwide were involved in planting 160 million hectares of GM crops, making biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in modern times.
Coping with Climate Change and Food Insecurity in East Africa
A landmark study published recently by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security surveyed over 700 farming households in East Africa about how they are coping with climate change. Researchers set out to answer the seemingly simple question, “Are households that are more innovative more likely to be food secure than less-innovative farming households?”
Saturday Series: An Interview with Ken Dabkowski
Ken has been a part of M·CAM and the Global Innovations Commons (GIC) initiative for about 3 years. At M-CAM he helps the organization with its communications and foreign affairs. The key concept behind all M·CAM initiatives is the idea that while everyone on the planet does not have access to the same resources, everyone does have access to creativity. Prior to working with M·CAM, Ken worked at The Arlington Institute, a future technologies think tank located in Virginia.
The United Nations Environment Programme Announces 22nd International Children's Painting Competition on the Environment
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is sponsoring the 22nd International Children’s Painting Competition on the Environment. The painting competition has been held since 1991 and has received entries from more than three million children in more than 150 countries. This year’s theme is “Water: The Source of Life.” Children from all over the world are invited to submit their original paintings to the UNEP office in their region by February 29, 2013.
Citywatch: Forest Gardens in Honduras Make the Best of Two Worlds
Yorito, Honduras. The drought-parching harvests in several of the world’s most productive food baskets is the summer’s hottest global food story. Eerily, it’s matched by the season’s hottest archeological finding, which comes across as a cautionary tale. Benjamin Cook, who sifts through mountains of computerized data rather than dusting off shards of pottery like old-fashioned archeologists, developed a climate model that explains one of the great mysteries of Western hemisphere history — the sudden collapse of the advanced and mighty Mayan Empire roughly 1,300 years ago.
Nourishing the Planet in Forbes
Nourishing the Planet was featured in a Forbes article, “Want More than Food Porn? Try These Info-Filled Sites,” published last week. The article lists four websites that “help visualize serious issues for interested viewers.” Nourishing the Planet, the article writes, “has an overall fresh new look and feel to their site and they run several informative food and agriculture blogs.”
Copyright © 2012 The Nourishing the Planet Project, All rights reserved.
You have received this email from Nourishing the Planet because you opted-in on our website or signed up at one of our events. Thank you for your interest in sustainable agriculture!
Our mailing address is:
The Nourishing the Planet Project
4858 N. Hermitage Ave
Apt 3A
Chicago, IL 60640
Add us to your address book
Email: dnierenberg@nourishingtheplanet.org
Phone: +1-202-590-1037
follow on Twitter
friend on Facebook
forward to a friend
unsubscribe from this list
update subscription preferences
Don't forget to check us out on Facebook and Twitter! Is this email not displaying correctly?
View it in your browser.
Forward to your friends!
Research in Real Time
Dear Naresh,
For the last two weeks, foodies, farmers, and scientists have been debating the validity of a study released by Stanford University about the nutritional quality of organic produce. The analysis concludes that organic foods—foods grown without pesticides and other agro-chemicals—are not superior in quality to conventionally produced varieties. According to the study, the risk of exposure to pesticides and other harsh chemicals is only negligibly higher in conventional foods. In other words, the study argues that consumers who pay higher prices for the supposed health benefits of organic foods have been wasting their money. But our friends Chuck Benbrook, Dawn Undurraga, and Francis Moore Lappe disagree.
Although the Stanford study claims that there is a 30 percent “risk difference” between organic and conventional foods, Chuck Benbrook, a scientist and former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, finds, “an overall 81 percent lower risk or incidence of one or more pesticide residues in the organic samples compared to the conventional samples”—using Stanford’s data. This discrepancy is the result of the Stanford researchers’ decision to omit certain criterion from their system of analysis, such as the difference between single and multiple pesticide traces (i.e. the difference between an organic apple containing a trace amount of one pesticide, and a conventional apple lathered in a highly-concentrated assortment of different pesticides).
Even if the Stanford analysis were accurate, it wouldn't warrant the “breaking news” media attention it has received. Dawn Undurraga of the Environmental Working Group notes that as a new mom, even a 31 percent difference in pesticide residue is enough to reinforce her preference for organic foods. She reminds us that even using the low Stanford figures, a consumer is five times more likely to ingest pesticides with conventional than with organic varieties—a fact that the mainstream media has completely overlooked.
And Francis Moore Lappe, in a Huffington Post article, reprehends the Stanford scientists for not considering long term studies of organic versus conventional consumption in their analysis (the studies they used ranged from two days to two years). Ms. Lappe notes that the short-term studies used in the research are inadequate for determining the health impacts of pesticide consumption--she says “it is well established that chemical exposure often takes decades to show up, for example, in cancer or neurological disorders.”
And the Stanford study didn't consider the environmental impacts of organic versus conventional food production. Organic food procurement has a host of benefits, none of which are acknowledged in the report: it contributes to increased biodiversity in the field—more birds and beneficial insects, better soil biota—and to decreased pollution associated with the use of pesticides and chemical fertilizers. And American farm workers, who have an average lifespan of 49 years, will likely benefit from a decrease in the application of pesticides.
What do you think about the Stanford study and the media attention is has received? Do you think that organic food is healthier? Email me with your thoughts!
All the best,
Danielle Nierenberg
Nourishing the Planet Project Director
Worldwatch Institute
www.nourishingtheplanet.org
Email: dnierenberg@nourishingtheplanet.org
Phone: +1-202-590-1037
P.S. Also please connect with Nourishing the Planet on Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, YouTube, and Flickr where you will find infographics, quotes, original video, articles, and news that can't be found anywhere else.
Here are some highlights from the week:
Mobile Farming Helps Farmers Save Time, Water, and Electricity
Managing irrigation pumps and water systems is a difficult and costly task for many farmers in developing countries. The amount of time and energy farmers spend watering their crops often compromises time that could otherwise be used for family and community obligations. It also compromises their safety at night, when they are most vulnerable to animal predators. A new innovation from the India based company, Ossian Agro Automation, called Nano Ganesh seeks to transform the way farmers manage their water systems by giving them the freedom to turn pumps on and off, from any location, with their mobile phone.
Benbrook Study on GM Crops and Pesticides
New data from a study carried out by Chuck Benbrook shows that GM crops do not reduce the quantity of pesticides used in their production over time, and crops now considered herbicide-tolerant include corn (Bt corn varieties), soy, and cotton (Bt cotton varities). During 2011, over 16 million farmers worldwide were involved in planting 160 million hectares of GM crops, making biotech crops the fastest adopted crop technology in modern times.
Coping with Climate Change and Food Insecurity in East Africa
A landmark study published recently by the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security surveyed over 700 farming households in East Africa about how they are coping with climate change. Researchers set out to answer the seemingly simple question, “Are households that are more innovative more likely to be food secure than less-innovative farming households?”
Saturday Series: An Interview with Ken Dabkowski
Ken has been a part of M·CAM and the Global Innovations Commons (GIC) initiative for about 3 years. At M-CAM he helps the organization with its communications and foreign affairs. The key concept behind all M·CAM initiatives is the idea that while everyone on the planet does not have access to the same resources, everyone does have access to creativity. Prior to working with M·CAM, Ken worked at The Arlington Institute, a future technologies think tank located in Virginia.
The United Nations Environment Programme Announces 22nd International Children's Painting Competition on the Environment
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is sponsoring the 22nd International Children’s Painting Competition on the Environment. The painting competition has been held since 1991 and has received entries from more than three million children in more than 150 countries. This year’s theme is “Water: The Source of Life.” Children from all over the world are invited to submit their original paintings to the UNEP office in their region by February 29, 2013.
Citywatch: Forest Gardens in Honduras Make the Best of Two Worlds
Yorito, Honduras. The drought-parching harvests in several of the world’s most productive food baskets is the summer’s hottest global food story. Eerily, it’s matched by the season’s hottest archeological finding, which comes across as a cautionary tale. Benjamin Cook, who sifts through mountains of computerized data rather than dusting off shards of pottery like old-fashioned archeologists, developed a climate model that explains one of the great mysteries of Western hemisphere history — the sudden collapse of the advanced and mighty Mayan Empire roughly 1,300 years ago.
Nourishing the Planet in Forbes
Nourishing the Planet was featured in a Forbes article, “Want More than Food Porn? Try These Info-Filled Sites,” published last week. The article lists four websites that “help visualize serious issues for interested viewers.” Nourishing the Planet, the article writes, “has an overall fresh new look and feel to their site and they run several informative food and agriculture blogs.”
Copyright © 2012 The Nourishing the Planet Project, All rights reserved.
You have received this email from Nourishing the Planet because you opted-in on our website or signed up at one of our events. Thank you for your interest in sustainable agriculture!
Our mailing address is:
The Nourishing the Planet Project
4858 N. Hermitage Ave
Apt 3A
Chicago, IL 60640
Add us to your address book
Email: dnierenberg@nourishingtheplanet.org
Phone: +1-202-590-1037
follow on Twitter
friend on Facebook
forward to a friend
unsubscribe from this list
update subscription preferences
No comments:
Post a Comment