The Fatal Peanut

[Samuel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/27/science/27qna.html

The Fatal Peanut
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY
Published: December 27, 2005

Q. I never used to hear about peanut allergies, especially fatal ones. Is the number increasing?

A. Experts differ on whether more people are becoming allergic to peanuts or more cases are being recognized and reported. Allergies over all were poorly understood until recent decades, and sudden deaths from anaphylactic shock owing to extreme peanut sensitivity might easily have been ascribed to other causes.

Reasons that have been suggested for an actual increase in cases include changes in diet and changes in manufacturing techniques for processed foods, which could expose and sensitize more and more people.

Allergy to peanuts is found in about 0.6 percent of Americans, according to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Allergy to peanuts or tree nuts is the most severe of food allergies, and unlike most of them, which tend to fade with age, it often persists into adulthood and increases in severity with each exposure.

Because it is life-threatening, peanut allergy is the first target of a new Food Allergy Research Consortium, which will receive about $17 million from the allergy institute. The researchers will evaluate a possible desensitization therapy using a modified form of the peanut proteins that set off the allergic reaction; using natural peanuts is too dangerous.

In 2000, one of the researchers in the study, Dr. Hugh A. Sampson of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine, said in the Journal of Pediatrics, "Most pediatric allergists agree that the prevalence of food allergies, and peanut allergy in particular, is increasing, although appropriate epidemiologic data to substantiate this belief are lacking. The reason for this apparent rise continues to elude us."

C. CLAIBORNE RAY

[2bthinner!]

It's evolution. *snicker* :lol:

I know peanut or really any allergy is nothing to laugh at, but for some reason when I read it, evolution popped into my head. I personally think it's less hygienic conditions. I mean it only takes one person not cleaning something to contaminate something else. And a lot of people do not give allergic reactions the merit they deserve. Especially if they don't have allergies themselves. Or they have non life threatening allergies, so, of course, no one else's could be worse than theirs.. (That isn't "everyone" of course) But, I have reaction to aspartame. I've been told that since I don't break out in hives, I'm not allergic. I just have a sensitivity. I just get a case of diarreah and horrible cramps.. And I'm told, since it didn't bother them, it must be "something else" in the product. But, I've had that reaction when that's the ONLY sweetener in the product...

[Lisa N]

I know peanut or really any allergy is nothing to laugh at, but for some reason when I read it, evolution popped into my head.

I'm not sure about the evolution part, but if more children are surviving their peanut allergy (ie it doesn't kill them as children) and passing their allergy genes to the next generation, it could at least in part explain the increase.
Strangely enough, peanuts are the only 'nut' (they're actually not nuts but legumes) that my DH is not allergic to but he has life-threatening (as in carry an Epi-Pen with you at all times) allergies to all tree nuts along with several other foods. What's interesting is that he developed these food allergies as an adult at the age of 40.

[Nancy LC]

Actually, a lot of allergies are being blamed on living with a "too clean" environment. You don't find the number of allergies in third world countries that we have in the US. They say children in multi-children households, and pets, help kids not develop allergies. Probably because enough challenges are brought into their environment to help develop REAL challenges to their immune system.

[ceberezin]

My son had an anaphylactic reaction to peanuts when he was a toddler. It was terrifying. It was also frightening for him to have to carry around an epipen kit and to know that something so simple and so prevalent could kill him. I took him to a Dodger game once. We had to leave right away because there were peanuts all around him.

When he became a teenager, his allergist retested him using and external blood test,the patch test being too dangerous. Surprisingly, his allergy was gone! He still doesn't like to be around peanuts, but they won;t kill him.

[2bthinner!]

"Actually, a lot of allergies are being blamed on living with a "too clean" environment"

I meant contaminate other items with peanuts because they didn't clean the container or belt or whatever... But, I've heard that about being "too clean" too. (I don't have that problem :rolleyes: :D , pets, etc)

[ysabella]

My mom sent me an article that suggested I avoid eating peanuts and tree nuts during my third trimester of pregnancy, in the hope that it might make a difference in the baby's allergy status.

Not sure about the science behind that, but it wouldn't be a big deal for me to avoid those things.

[theoldlady]

I think it's GM foods. I used to have a cast-iron constitution and was raised in something less than a sterile environment (ahem). I could eat, breathe, or contact anything non-poisonous. In the years since GM foods were forced into our diets without our permission or knowledge, I have developed "sensitivities" (also no hives, but sometimes painful and severe reactions) to a number of different foods. Apparently, I'm not the only one. Fancy that! A recent increase in allergies and sensitivities. Gee.

The food industry will blame these allergies on anything but the the food, of course.

[Lisa N]

Actually, a lot of allergies are being blamed on living with a "too clean" environment. You don't find the number of allergies in third world countries that we have in the US. They say children in multi-children households, and pets, help kids not develop allergies. Probably because enough challenges are brought into their environment to help develop REAL challenges to their immune system.

I've heard that about illness, but never about allergies. Moms who are a little too zealous about keeping their kids healthy and zapping as many germs in the environment as possible can actually be doing them a disservice by not allowing their immune systems to be challenged once in a while.
Allergies, on the other hand, have a strong genetic component. My DH has had 'hay fever' since he was small and now has developed food allergies in his middle age. My oldest daughter who favors her dad's side of the family has had 'hay fever' (dust actually triggers her the worst) since she was 2, probably younger, and when she was diagnosed, her pediatrician just shrugged and said, "The apple doesn't fall far from the tree". We had 2 indoor cats at the time and having 2 babies under 2 I wasn't exactly obsessive about house cleaning. My youngest DD (raised in the same house and environment) has no allergies so far but she tends to favor my side of the family.

I think it's GM foods.

That would go a long way towards explaining why my DH has developed allegies to foods this late in life and the types of foods he's now allergic to (raw apples, carrots, celery, peaches and all tree nuts cooked or not), but it doesn't explain airborne allergies (dust, molds, mildew, pollen, grasses, etc...). Perhaps, like many things, it's a combination of genes and environment?

[2bthinner!]

something he's eating is making him hypersensitive. A few years ago, I had a tooth break. It had had a root canal, so they didn't get me in for four days. Well, it got infected. Then, to deal with that, they would drill in, clean it and put in a temporary filling. Then do it again the next week. The infection was so bad, my jaw bone was gray on the x ray. I had hives the whole six months. The dentist stated that it was something other than the tooth. I didn't think so though, as I could go in reasonably clear and be breaking out when I left. I began reacting to everything. If I changed clothes I'd break out, so I changed my laundry detergent. They had me on inhalers and steriods and antibiotics. The combo that killed a few people then. The erethromycin and a antihistamine that they no longer use together. To finish up a long and convulted story. When they finished getting the infection out of the tooth and put the permanent filling in and crown on it. My hives were gone. Period. Very weird.

[arc]

My "hay fever", which I have suffered from for the last 15 years (all as an adult), turned out to be a wheat sensitivity. I know that's not the same thing as a peanut allergy, but it's possible that our increasing poor diet is at least partly to blame for the increasing allergies.

[tom sawyer]

Could it be that as a population we are being exposed to more peanut-containing products than in the past? Not sure how common peanut butter was a hundred years ago. Same goes for all foods, our food distribution system is so developed that we are eating stuff from around the world now. Things are available year-round, that were either seasonal or not available at all in the recent past. And we can afford more of them as well.

Why blame GM foods when there isn't a shred of evidence that they cause allergy or even that incidence has changed? I think it is because of the internet, I mean it has come onto the scene in the last ten years and here we are seeing an increase in allergies. TMI.

I think it is possible that the average carb-laden diet is causing our immune systems to be on constant high alert, making us more prone to have an allergic reaction to something that would otherwise be a mild allergen. I myself have had my asthma and acne essentially dissappear after being on LC for a year. Thats just a correlation and proves nothing, but I think I've read where insulin has something to do with inflammation. I'm banking on this helping me to avoid the arterial disease that is prevalent in my family.

[tom sawyer]

We could also attribute an increased sensitivity to allergens, to things like dust and smog from cars. Anything that irritates your system, kicks your immune system on and from there you are a hair-trigger away from a severe reaction. Without being on DefCon5 all the time, you might not even have noticed the reaction to something you were otherwise mildly allergic to.

There are many many possibilities. And this is only IF we assume the incidence is going up, and not simply the rate of recognition. I suppose that until we have evidence that there actually has been an increase in allergy incidence, the potential cause(s) are a nonissue.

[tom sawyer]

Many GM foods do not express the protein in the edible parts of a plant. And it escapes me, why someone would think that a foreign protein would cause anything but an allergy to that particular protein? You don't eat peanuts and develop an allergy to wheat, not unless there is homology between proteins from the two species. And the GM proteins are typically bacterial in origin, which means we are also exposed to them in our guts in many cases.

[Kristine]

I think it's mainly increased exposure, combined with the other factors mentioned.

It reminds me of latex allergies: many health care workers suddenly develop a severe allergy to latex after wearing gloves for 40 hours a week for a number of years. This happened to several of my co-workers, and there were always latex-free gloves available for them.

[ceberezin]

There's no such thing as an allergy to dust, per se. A large component of dust is the dead skin cells we shed every day. Tiny mites feed on those dead skin cells, and some people are allergic to their feces. Dust mites can't thrive at higher altitudes, so people have noticed their dust allergies disappearing when they go to the moutains.

Asthma is an ecoisanoid related issue. Read the Eades on that one.

[2bthinner!]

That's what the dentist told me about the "inert" temporary filling they were putting in my tooth. But, I'd be breaking out in additional hives every time I left their office. I don't think allergies are quite that simple. i.e. we're only allergic to things that aren't inert. I don't think we know everything about this world, not by a long shot.

[ysabella]

I'm not sure what foods you guys think are GMO, but in case it helps: in North America, there are mostly soybeans, corn, canola, and rapeseed, mostly used to make oil. Most oils don't have proteins in them, so they don't have allergens - some cold-pressed oils will still have proteins. Aside from that, some things like papayas, and also some enzymes used to make cheese and other products.
Other major world crops are Chinese-grown cotton and I think some rice varieties.

Allergens have been a major concern in GMO research. There was a soybean variety given a gene from Brazil nuts, but testing showed that it could produce an allergen, so the entire project was scrapped and all the test plants destroyed.

There are no GMO peanuts, but there is GMO research going on for peanuts, to make their proteins less allergenic. But according to the American Peanut Council, the soonest they could be out is 2008. There are some theories that the molds that can grow on peanuts make them more allergenic by changing the proteins somehow, so making them more mold-resistant might help also.

[Dodger]

That's what the dentist told me about the "inert" temporary filling they were putting in my tooth. But, I'd be breaking out in additional hives every time I left their office. I don't think allergies are quite that simple. i.e. we're only allergic to things that aren't inert. I don't think we know everything about this world, not by a long shot.I don't know how going to the dentist affects you, but stress can cause hives.

[2bthinner!]

However, wouldn't I break out before I got there if it were nerves? And I've been more nervous about other things, and never gotten hives. In fact, I haven't gotten hives since then. And we've been sued. You want to talk about nerves, if it were nerves, I'd have had major hives then.

[stephiewil]

My brother almost died at three from eating peanuts and is deathly allergic to them so he and his wife decided to not take a chance and have not given them to thier now six year old son just in case. Asthma and allergies ran in his birth family on his maternal side ( we are both adopted ) and he is just concerned it could have been passed on as it is so strong in the family genes. Stephie

[theoldlady]

Why blame GM foods when there isn't a shred of evidence that they cause allergy or even that incidence has changed? I think it is because of the internet, I mean it has come onto the scene in the last ten years and here we are seeing an increase in allergies. TMI.Yes, and everybody knows that trees cause wind because you never feel the wind unless the trees are moving. But there is some evidence that anemometers cause it too. And of course, folks frequently consume too much Internet. ;)

However, in my case, I have a long history of having had a cast-iron constitution, as I said. I started having a wheat allergy about the time that GM wheat was added to our diets without our knowledge or permission. I suffered horribly for years as my affliction became worse and worse (as more and more products had GM wheat added to them) and was about to become bedridden when (because of "Eat Right 4 Your Type" by Dr. Peter J. D'Adamo) I eliminated wheat from my diet. Within two weeks, I was on my feet, my allergy nearly eliminated. Six weeks later, I was fine.

Later, testing wheat, I could induce symptoms easily with conventional products but not organic(guaranteed non-GM)whole wheat products. Now, I have years of experience in industrial research and also R&D. I know how to do a controlled test, so I am confident of the results of these experiments on myself.

I apologise for extrapolating my problem to others, but if I am the only person on earth who has this problem, then I guess I am a mutant.

[ysabella]

What?! There is no GM wheat. Doesn't exist.

The first ones have only just been approved and have not been planted anywhere. I think maybe we have some kind of misunderstanding about what you mean when you use the term GM?

[PaulaB]

I don't know about what happens in the US but it turned out that manufactorers of baby milk where putting peanut oil in the product. Now parents are told not to feed small children nuts and then they do this? Also looking at the increase in asthma, could that have someting to do with the increase innumbers of small babies being put into pushchairs not traditional prams, I mean their littlen noses are right at the level of the exhaust pipes and that can't be healthy.

[Zuleikaa]

What?! There is no GM wheat. Doesn't exist.

The first ones have only just been approved and have not been planted anywhere. I think maybe we have some kind of misunderstanding about what you mean when you use the term GM?Monsanto has been planting test fields of GM wheat for over 10 years. You have to actually plant the wheat in order to get a crop of GM wheat seed. They try to keep the location of these fields secret.

There have been cases of GM wheat cross contamination and there were a couple of suits where the GM wheat had contaminated fields of organic wheat that were over 10 miles away.

Organic wheat has to pass tests to prove it's organic, thats when the contamination was found. I read that one case was settled with Monsanto. Regualr wheat does not have to be tested. So it is very possible that GM wheat has contaminated regular wheat supplies.

I think it's even more likely that cross contamination has occured as cross contamination with non GM crops has been found with all GM productions so far. In fact, there have been recalls for corn and rapeseed GM contaminated products that made it as far as distribution to food stores.

[ysabella]

PaulaB, if it was cold expeller-pressed peanut oil that would be a possibility. Incidentally, I have read about a correlation between children swimming in chlorinated pools and the rise of asthma - it might explain mine; I've been swimming since I was 3.

Zuleikaa, could you please link to info about the cases for me? I can't find 'em. There were injunctions to prevent Monsanto from planting in some places, but no actual cases of wheat pollen/seed contamination that I can find.

[tom sawyer]

Monsanto had some GM corn get in the food chain, hadn't heard about wheat.

Couldn't you grow GM plants organically? I thought organic meant no chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Susan, maybe your constitution simply changed? Happens when we get old. Things change, body parts droop lower, and lower,... Allergies come and go in our lives. Doesn't mean GM foods are the culprit.

[Nancy LC]

Gluten sensitivity is often delayed onset in people, or sometimes the symptoms are silent. They don't really know what makes it become active. And then once you get one food sensitivity, it can lead to others.

[Zuleikaa]

Couldn't you grow GM plants organically? I thought organic meant no chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Sure you can grow them organically. An organic certification encompasses soil, seed, fertilizers, pesticides. Some organic farmers have lost their certification because of wind drift from official sprayings. The certifications are very strict.

[mgw]

Could it be that the allergy is sometimes less to the food itself, and more to something which is added to the food (e.g. hormone, fertilizer, preservative, packaging material or pesticide) which was not added to that food in the past?

Could it be any kind of side effect of breeding and genetically engineering plants or animals more extremely than in the past?

Could it be anything to do with trying to compensate for the condition of the soil in which people farm?

Does the globalization of agriculture change the foods we eat in a way that might matter?

While the ability to detect allergies may also have improved, I wish the people who study this kind of thing would consider that there might be something actually changing here, and why it might be changing.

[theoldlady]

Yes! Rethinking....

Thanks everyone for all your input. I guess that the only thing I know is that non-organic whole wheat causes a debilitating reaction in me. Sigh... I had heard that while my symptoms were getting worse and worse, GM (genetically modified) wheat was being added to our food. Made sense to blame the GM wheat at the time. So now I have no idea what caused this problem (scary), but it hasn't been an issue since I stopped eating wheat anyway.

You're right, Tom. I'm getting old and creaky. Another problem that is new is a loss of cadence in my heart rhythm if I take any kind of pill or vitamin in tablet form. This is accompanied by low blood pressure and low heart rate. I can and do take the same vitamins in powder or capsule form without a problem. So there is some filler, or more likely binder, in tablets to which I am also allergic. Sigh...

And please don't say "droop."

[tom sawyer]

The pill-swallowing thing is interesting, wonder if the lump pushes on a nerve or vessel on the way down your gullet? Food probably doesn't hold its shape like a hard pill, and some of those vitamins are gigantic. It'd be like giving yourself chest compressions.

You're truly wierd Susan but you have a great smile and we like having you around. And no more using the "D" word, agreed.

[ysabella]

While the ability to detect allergies may also have improved, I wish the people who study this kind of thing would consider that there might be something actually changing here, and why it might be changing.
mgw, why do you think they have not considered these things? There are an awful lot of factors, though. It's pretty hard to consider all of them.

Incidentally, GM crops are actually an effort to be more organic - less pesticides, for example. From a neat Economist article on wheat:
Today scientists use thermal neutrons, x-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical - anything that will damage DNA - to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of "mutation breeding." No safety tests are done, nobody protests. the irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding - an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted.

[Zuleikaa]

mgw, why do you think they have not considered these things? There are an awful lot of factors, though. It's pretty hard to consider all of them.

Incidentally, GM crops are actually an effort to be more organic - less pesticides, for example. From a neat Economist article on wheat:
Today scientists use thermal neutrons, x-rays, or ethyl methane sulphonate, a harsh carcinogenic chemical - anything that will damage DNA - to generate mutant cereals. Virtually every variety of wheat and barley you see growing in the field was produced by this kind of "mutation breeding." No safety tests are done, nobody protests. the irony is that genetic modification (GM) was invented in 1983 as a gentler, safer, more rational and more predictable alternative to mutation breeding - an organic technology, in fact. Instead of random mutations, scientists could now add the traits they wanted. I totally disagree that tis is a way to be more organic!!! Organic is definitely not about mutant cereals!!!

[ceberezin]

Almost all the foods we eat are mutants! We have been hybridizing foods, both animals and plants for 10,000 years. The first wheat that was grown was hybridized from wild grasses. Our beef cattle bear the same relationship to the anmals our paleolithic forebears ate as a chihuahua does to a wolf. GM foods is simply another step in this hybridization process. My main problem with GM foods is that foods are being genetically modified to increase the profits of agribusiness, not for the benefit of our species as a whole.

[Nancy LC]

Well... don't know about that Ceberezin. While I think wheat is evil stuff, the GM modified wheat Monsanto had was drought tolerant and it would have grown much better in places where rainfall was spotty. Sure, that helps agribusiness but it also helps feed more people too. Of course.... they're feeding them wheat, which is bad IMHO, but it is still better than starving.

[ceberezin]

My impression is that while Monsanto may have done one or two things that have helped, a lot of what they do is to modify crops to make then resistant to the pesticides and chemicals Monsanto wants to sell. A lot of GM work is on the order of making a square tomato because it wil be cheaper to ship long distances that way.

[Nancy LC]

The GM modifications I heard about were things like:

Built in BT for resistance to catepillars.
Drought resistant varieties
A tomato that is always firm so it can be picked when ripe and doesn't then taste like crap.

I find the square tomatoes thing a little hard to believe. Lots of things are round and see to be quite shippable. :p Its stuff like mushiness when ripe that presents a shipping problem.

[Zuleikaa]

Mutants from hybridizing deal with like species. GM products insert a gene from an unlike specie, that's not hybridizing or selecting for traits. That's tampering. And the problem is that they have no idea of the long ranging implications.

[ysabella]

All the plants we eat are mutants, organic or not! "Mutant" is not a bad word at all when it comes to food crops. That's what it's all about. When strains are crossbred, it's a mutation. When certain plants are selected for unique properties, they have these properties due to mutation. Technically, it really all is genetic engineering, it's just slower and less direct, and with more discards.

We select the mutations that suit us. In the case of wheat, the ancient wild wheat grasses "shatter" and drop their seeds; early on as agriculture was developing, we selected for individuals that didn't shatter, so we could harvest the food grains ourselves in bulk. Most wheat we use for food is hexaploid, having six sets of chromosomes. That's not very common in nature, although it does happen. In wheat it's due to cross-breeding.
Another good example is corn - maize. The original plant, tseotinte, had cobs about an inch long. How we got from that to the modern huge cobs is via selection of mutations.

Incidentally, anti-GM types tend to make two specious claims quite commonly: the first is, that there are animal genes in food crops (they usually make up examples, like crossing jellyfish with potatoes to make potatoes glow in the dark). This is not true. There have been lab research experiments done in crossing animal genes into plant genes, but none of them were ever intended for food crops. The second specious claim is that GM crops are untested and unregulated. Totally false. They are the most highly tested crops we have ever had in the history of the world. American GM crops are regulated by the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA.

The previous strains developed by radiation bombardment and so on, those were untested and just thrown out into crops. Nobody ever complained. Those seem scarier to me than GM crops.

Incidentally, the so-called "square tomato" (http://daviswiki.org/Square_Tomato) was bred at UC Davis in the 1950s. That's got nothing at all to do with GM foods, invented in the 1980s.

[Nancy LC]

Humans have been tampering ever since they started planting seeds and breeding things. Nothing we eat resembles the plants they originally came from. Watch the nutritional anthroplogist on "Good Eats" sometime.

[Zuleikaa]

All the plants we eat are mutants, organic or not! "Mutant" is not a bad word at all when it comes to food crops. That's what it's all about. When strains are crossbred, it's a mutation. When certain plants are selected for unique properties, they have these properties due to mutation. Technically, it really all is genetic engineering, it's just slower and less direct, and with more discards.

We select the mutations that suit us. In the case of wheat, the ancient wild wheat grasses "shatter" and drop their seeds; early on as agriculture was developing, we selected for individuals that didn't shatter, so we could harvest the food grains ourselves in bulk. Most wheat we use for food is hexaploid, having six sets of chromosomes. That's not very common in nature, although it does happen. In wheat it's due to cross-breeding.
Another good example is corn - maize. The original plant, tseotinte, had cobs about an inch long. How we got from that to the modern huge cobs is via selection of mutations..I have no disagreement with this. Hybrids and mutations are natures way of diversifying and ours of selecting for or breeding for the traits we want.

Incidentally, anti-GM types tend to make two specious claims quite commonly: the first is, that there are animal genes in food crops (they usually make up examples, like crossing jellyfish with potatoes to make potatoes glow in the dark). This is not true. There have been lab research experiments done in crossing animal genes into plant genes, but none of them were ever intended for food crops. ...This I have a problem with. I don't much care about experimental crops except things in nature tend to get out. And Roundup is a chemical, not another plant material however disparate.

GM corn and rape were never intended for human food crops but they contaminated them just the same. Rape and corn had to be recalled because it was contaminated with GM corn and rape not intended for human consumption. There are no organic crops of rapeseed in Canada any more because of this contamination. Further, the rape crop has cross bred with some weeds and now these weeds are also resistent to herbicides, sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it. But that's my point. Experiments are hard to control in nature.

The second specious claim is that GM crops are untested and unregulated. Totally false. They are the most highly tested crops we have ever had in the history of the world. American GM crops are regulated by the USDA, the FDA, and the EPA...This I have an argument with. GM crops are not routinely tested (for what?) and GM crops are only regulated because people, me for one, protested. The USDA and FDA arguments were that these were just hybrids and reguired no regulation. Our argument was that they contained non plant material genes and the impact on, non GM seedstock, the environment, and human health was an unknown.

While this is still an unknown, what we've seen so far is not encouraging. The contamination of corn and rape crops to domestic seedstock have become widespread. The crossover to wild fauna, one of our concerns voiced at outset, is worrying.

I applaud EU and Asia for not taking GM products. I think it was only the fear of losing these customers and the influence they brought to bear on the USDA and FDA that assisted us in getting GM seed regulated. I still applaud them for not accepting these products. That's probably the only reason why more and more states are banning GM seed/products from being grown, and why the commercialization of GM wheat was stopped.
Now I've read that they're dumping GM wheat on Africa, the usual dumping ground for products banned in the US.

The previous strains developed by radiation bombardment and so on, those were untested and just thrown out into crops. Nobody ever complained. Those seem scarier to me than GM crops..This I really know nothing about. I am very familiar with the hybridization of home garden crops but not as familiar with commercial seed development except for some regional companies in the US and some in Europe. I would love to see your data on this. As far as I know (and I have seen their breeding programs) the companies I'm familiar with did not develop their seeds/strains this way.

[theoldlady]

The pill-swallowing thing is interesting, wonder if the lump pushes on a nerve or vessel on the way down your gullet? Food probably doesn't hold its shape like a hard pill, and some of those vitamins are gigantic. It'd be like giving yourself chest compressions.Hmmm... Maybe, I guess. Does it take three or four days to manifest? I have to take the tablets for a few days before it starts. And THAT caused me no end of grief when I was trying to figure out what the heck the problem was from. Took weeks.

You're truly wierd Susan... Why, thank you, Darling! What a sweet thing to say. <bats eyelashes, giggles, and tries unsuccessfully not to look "D" wordy> ;)

And no more using the "D" word, agreed.You're a sweetie. :lol:

[ysabella]

GM corn and rape were never intended for human food crops but they contaminated them just the same. Rape and corn had to be recalled because it was contaminated with GM corn and rape not intended for human consumption. There are no organic crops of rapeseed in Canada any more because of this contamination.There was StarLink corn, if that's what you mean. It was for animal feed but got into the human food supply, and was cleaned back out. All corn, including hybrids, that tested positive was bought back. The FDA and CDC both jumped all over this, tested some complaining consumers and leftover food samples, and found...nothing, no increased allergies, etc.
I'm not sure what rape/canola you mean that was not intended for human consumption. It is used for making ethanol and biodiesel, but it can also be made into vegetable oil for humans to eat. Canola oil is generally filtered and refined, and has no proteins in it anyway, so GM canola oil is exactly the same as non-GM canola oil and no test could tell them apart.
I see that there is less acreage in Canada used for organic canola, but it went from 0.09% in 1997-1999 to 0.04% in 2003, not a shocking figure to me.
Further, the rape crop has cross bred with some weeds and now these weeds are also resistent to herbicides, sort of defeats the purpose doesn't it. But that's my point. Experiments are hard to control in nature.
As for weeds, I found scare-stories everywhere screaming about 'GM superweeds' that all turned out to be about one sterile voluntary charlock plant (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/dn7729) in the UK that may have picked up a GM canola gene, or may have tested positive because it was covered with GM canola pollen from the test field it appeared in. It was herbicide-resistant, but weeds/plants develop that resistance without help from GM, they always have. One sterile charlock plant doesn't strike me as much.
I also found that there are no cases of GM canola crossing with weeds in Canada (http://www.canola-council.org/facts_gmo.html). There are some nuisance volunteer canola plants from the herbicide-resistant strains, but they are manageable.
Crops have always been bio-experiments. Plants have always developed resistance to herbicides. Pollen has always sprayed everywhere. We displaced and tainted native plants, we developed massive monocultures. You should probably be more worried about the long history of agriculture than this newest piece of it, environment-wise. At least with this technology, we can test and see exactly where it spreads, because we know the markers.
GM crops are not routinely tested (for what?)
Yes, they are. They are the most tested crops ever! The companies test them and the data is reviewed by government agencies. For what: (http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/evaluation.html)

USDA/APHIS for agricultural & environmental effects -
stable integration (of gene) into the plant's chromosomes
non-pathogenic to animals or humans
unlikely to be toxic to other non-target organisms
low risk of creating new plant viruses
For less common crops and for genes or traits posing a greater risk, researchers must file a formal application for permission to transport or plant the material
FDA for food safety -
If the introduced gene is from a known allergenic source, then the transgenic food must be assessed for allergenicity
Additional investigation may be required for transgenic crops if they involve: known toxicants, altered nutrient levels, new substances, antibiotic resistance markers
EPA for engineered pest-resistant plants -
Examines data characterizing the plant-incorporated protectant, e.g., the biochemical nature of the product, its mode of action, and the time and tissues in which the product is expressed
Reviews environmental effects (both risks and benefits) of the proposed plant-incorporated protectant, including effects on non-target organisms and environmental fate
May require a "resistance management plan", measures to slow down development of resistance in the target pest
Determines whether the introduced gene or its product are toxic, typically based on toxicity testing in animals
Sets tolerance levels for pesticide residues, if there is evidence of toxicity. Because of lack of toxicity in plant-incorporated protectants evaluated to date, they have been exempt from this requirement
Regulates new uses of existing pesticides, such as use of herbicides together with herbicide-resistant transgenics

Not all of those are done for every crop but they are done routinely where applicable. More on testing here (http://www.ext.vt.edu/pubs/biotech/443-006/443-006.html).
...and GM crops are only regulated because people, me for one, protested. The USDA and FDA arguments were that these were just hybrids and reguired no regulation. Our argument was that they contained non plant material genes and the impact on, non GM seedstock, the environment, and human health was an unknown.
Then you were rather prescient, since non-plant genes were not introduced until the 90s, and regulation was set up in 1986 (http://usbiotechreg.nbii.gov/Coordinated_Framework_1986_Federal_Register.html).
While this is still an unknown, what we've seen so far is not encouraging. The contamination of corn and rape crops to domestic seedstock have become widespread. The crossover to wild fauna, one of our concerns voiced at outset, is worrying.There are issues with GM plants spreading, definitely, and for all kinds of reasons - growers not complying with regulation, storms, mingling of crops after harvest, etc. More segregation systems should be put in place, since people want them. Bear in mind that seedstocks can be re-purified to remove GM-positive seeds; detection is easy and gets simpler every year.
I applaud EU and Asia for not taking GM products.
EU, true, but China and India both grow GM cotton.
I think it was only the fear of losing these customers and the influence they brought to bear on the USDA and FDA that assisted us in getting GM seed regulated.It was regulated from the start, as I showed. Long before it ever was planted outside a highly secure greenhouse, that's for sure. From design to release of a product has run as much as 10 years.
I still applaud them for not accepting these products. That's probably the only reason why more and more states are banning GM seed/products from being grown, and why the commercialization of GM wheat was stopped.Yes, people are afraid of GM crops. But are they afraid for fact-based reasons? Or lies and fear-mongering?
The truth is, most people know very little about genes and how they work. Ignorance is why it's scary for most of us.
Now I've read that they're dumping GM wheat on Africa, the usual dumping ground for products banned in the US.
Please provide a link. Not much GM wheat has been produced, so there's not much to 'dump.' South Africa is growing GM cotton, soybeans, and corn, though.
And this is where it gets tiresome. Zambia is refusing maize from the US, because we don't segregate GM from non-GM, and if they let any GM then someday when they have a mythical food overabundance maybe Europe won't buy any, since Europe is afraid of GM. Which you have said, you applaud. But hey, what's a few hundred thousand children starving to death?
Basically, it's the DDT story all over again. Some well-fed wealthy Westerners don't like it - so Africa shouldn't use it, even if it will save lives and solve problems.
Incidentally, Mozambique and Zimbabwe (http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/737.cfm) will accept GM maize for food, and just grind it up before distributing so it can't be planted. Zambia is not so sensible.
I am very familiar with the hybridization of home garden crops but not as familiar with commercial seed development except for some regional companies in the US and some in Europe. I would love to see your data on this. As far as I know (and I have seen their breeding programs) the companies I'm familiar with did not develop their seeds/strains this way.Here's a page (http://www.colostate.edu/programs/lifesciences/TransgenicCrops/history.html) that's informative about that (Calrose rice and Star Ruby grapefruit sound familiar to me). It's something I knew nothing about until I read this recent article about wheat in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5323362) that I quoted earlier (I think it's subscriber-only content but I'm not sure).
Here's a searchable database of "mutant varieties." (http://www-infocris.iaea.org/MVD/)

I'm not trying to say that everyone should hurry up and accept GM foods. We should watch them closely and be skeptical. But there is a lot of misinformation out there. If someone tells you there is no testing/regulation of GM plants/crops, that is false. If someone tells you that there are rat genes in tomatoes and jellyfish genes in potatoes, in our food supply, that is false. Many anti-GM web pages claim there is no regulation while they simultaneously accuse Monsanto and others of greed because they patent their seeds - but patents are a form of regulation, so you can't really have that both ways.
Most people who oppose GM don't do so on the merits of GM itself as a technology; it's mostly based on mistrust of government, agribusiness, and corporations. Personally I feel that the technology has vast potential and should be viewed in that light.

[ysabella]

Anyway, to try to come back to the topic of peanuts, here's a neat trick: GM Vaccine for Peanut Allergy Shows Promise (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/dn3930), circa 2003. See what I did there?

Here's some more:
Allergy-reducing GM rice (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/story/0,3605,1605854,00.html)
Hypoallergenic GM wheat (http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,495515,00.html)
GM soybeans with allergen protein removed (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/gm-food/dn2782)

I think it can be argued that the study of recombinant DNA and resulting GM food crops is vastly furthering our knowledge about allergens and how they work, especially food allergies, which have always been dangerous and hard to treat.

Also, have you ever heard the theory that our environment as babies/children is too sterile, and that may be while we have more allergy problems? Well, I read recently that studies on parasite infestations have shown that certain parasites that hook into our intestines actually give off antihistamine-type substances. So some parasites may be more of a symbiotic thing with us.
Other parasites can make allergies worse, though, so it's not like taking on parasites is necessarily a good thing.

[Zuleikaa]

Then you were rather prescient, since non-plant genes were not introduced until the 90s, and regulation was set up in 1986The Council for Responsible Genetics was founded in 1983 in Cambridge, MA to fight GE seed stock contamination and encrouchment. I'm from Boston, MA over the bridge.

Development comes before introduction which comes at the same time or before regulation unless there's pressure like was applied.

And like I said earlier in order to introduce seed you must have seed stock which requires cultivating open air seed stock fields.

While the original crosses were deveoped in greenhouses they quickly had to move to outdoor fields for evaluation and testing (not EPA or FDA testing but growing condition testing). Enough seed stock for introduction could not possibly be raised in greenhouses, nor would such seed have the ability to be viable in field conditions without field testing and further selection.

Please provide a link. Not much GM wheat has been produced, so there's not much to 'dump.' South Africa is growing GM cotton, soybeans, and corn, though.http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Africa-GM-Dumping-Ground20jan04.htmThere are issues with GM plants spreading, definitely, and for all kinds of reasons - growers not complying with regulation, storms, mingling of crops after harvest, etc. More segregation systems should be put in place, since people want them. Bear in mind that seedstocks can be re-purified to remove GM-positive seeds; detection is easy and gets simpler every year.You left out ordinary everyday wind drift which is most responsible. GM contamination has been found as far away as ten miles from GM fields. How far do Monsanto's GM crops need to be isolated from their non GM brethren? Monsanto won't say.

What about the deathes of butterflies, ladybugs, and bees that eat the GM seed pollen in those fields and that carry to other fields and the environment. These insects are essential in the pollination of crops and to the existance of organic farms.

And yes the grain/seed can be tested but not until after the fact. After the contamination has occured. Further, the contamination has to be suspected, or us green types pressure/sue for the tests to be run. Not until after it's contaminated farmers fields and the farmers crop has been confiscated or the farmer is forced to pay Monsanto for use of seed he never planted. Not until the organic farmer has lost his crop for that year and his organic certification for multiple years--up to 15--and thus his livelihood.In March 2001, Percy Schmeiser was found guilty of having plants of Monsanto-patented, Genetically Engineered (GE), Roundup Ready canola on his land. He was found not guilty of obtaining the seed fraudulently, and insists that he never purchased seed from Monsanto or used Roundup herbicide on his crops. The judge specified that whether Monsanto’s proprietary genetics came in via wind, water, birds, or fell off farmers’ trucks did not matter: Schmeiser infringed on Monsanto’s patent. The judge also ruled that when any fields are contaminated with GE seed, the crop would become the property of the patent owner -- in this case Monsanto. Rather than being compensated for the loss of his special variety of canola, Schmeiser’s crop was confiscated.

In May of 2004, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in Schmeiser's appeal case that although Monsanto's patent is valid, Schmeiser would not be forced to pay Monsanto’s fines or legal fees, since he did not profit from the contamination. Nevertheless, the impact of the Canadian Court decision, and current rules governing the intellectual property rights related to GE seed, place all farmers at risk. Around the world, farmers are being visited by Monsanto's private investigators. They come to the door, advise the farmers that they're suspected of illegally planting its GE seeds, and offer a letter stipulating what the farmers must pay to avoid being formally prosecuted and potentially losing thier entire farm. If the farmers choose to pay the fee, they are also obliged to sign a letter saying that they will remain silent about the incident or face further prosecution. An interesting article that clarifies some of the issues and confusion surrounding GE plantings. I also thought the outcome showed the clout of Monsanto.

http://www.keepmainefree.org/ld1219.html

here's another that doesn't sound hysterical but it does sound like more than "nuisance" to me:
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/is161205.txtEU, true, but China and India both grow GM cotton. But more and more people there are also protesting against GM seed in those countries as well. And there is corruption in governments everywhere. Just because its allowed in doesn't mean that the people wanted it in.

Further the benefits of increased yields and decreased need of pesticides just don't seem to be there. That was the touted benefit of these GM seeds, wasn't it?

This is a site with lots of links to GM rhetoric.
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/

At this point I'm going to just agree to disagree. We could each go on forever cherry picking articles and incidents that support our own particular views.

But I do urge others to think of the point in the future when the choice to go non GM might no longer be there.

Also the fact that allergens, contaminations, encrouchment, and environment and human effects usually take a generation or more to become evident (especially so with the producer suppressing data). We're now in that timeframe. I expect to see more negative news on GM crops.

Something to think about.

[judyr]

. In the years since GM foods were forced into our diets without our permission or knowledge,

Actually, we have been manipulating genes in our food since we started being farmers instead of hunters and gatherers. That is what farming does... pick the "best" and grow/raise more of it. Now we are just speeding up the process.

[Zuleikaa]

Actually, we have been manipulating genes in our food since we started being farmers instead of hunters and gatherers. That is what farming does... pick the "best" and grow/raise more of it. Now we are just speeding up the process.That's kind of ingenuous. Yes, historically weve bred and selected the best traits, but they have been like genes..plant to plant not chemical to plant. Before plants were bred for a natural resistance to disease. GM plants contain pesticide genes that have never been found in nature and certainly not in other plants.

I'm old enough to remember the effects of DT on the environment and what it took to get it banned.

[Nancy LC]

You can't just invent new genes, the genes have to come from something else that is alive, either a plant or an animal. Do you mean like the Bt corn?

First off, BT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis) is a bacteria that is used even in organic gardening. It is found naturally in soil. It kills caterpillars. The organic whatever you're eating probably was sprayed with Bt if it is the sort of plant caterpillars like to eat.

So no, they're not putting pesticide genes in plants. They're putting genes in plants that make them inedible to certain insects. In the case of Bt, it only affects caterpillars. In the end, it means using less pesticides that are actually more toxic to a wider variety of life.

GM plants contain pesticide genes that have never been found in nature and certainly not in other plants.
That's impossible. We can't invent new genes, we can only slip genes from one thing to another. So far anyway.

[alisbabe]

Going back to the bit about allergies, excess omega 6 causes inflammation. Upping your omega 3 oils and cutting down on omega 6 rich food (grains, seeds, most nuts and grain fed meat) helps. The change in my own problems from taking a super high dose of omega 3 has been great.

eg. see
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Omega3FattyAcidscs.html

[ysabella]

The Council for Responsible Genetics was founded in 1983 in Cambridge, MA to fight GE seed stock contamination and encrouchment. I'm from Boston, MA over the bridge.Nobody had put a bug gene in a plant yet in 1983 or 1986. The Council for Responsible Genetics started their Safe Seed program (http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/safeseed.html) in 1999.
While the original crosses were deveoped in greenhouses they quickly had to move to outdoor fields for evaluation and testing (not EPA or FDA testing but growing condition testing). Enough seed stock for introduction could not possibly be raised in greenhouses, nor would such seed have the ability to be viable in field conditions without field testing and further selection.So, your claim is that GM seed and pollen started contaminating other plants before regulation was set up in 1986. Have you got proof of this? I'd be interested to see it.
You left out ordinary everyday wind drift which is most responsible. GM contamination has been found as far away as ten miles from GM fields. How far do Monsanto's GM crops need to be isolated from their non GM brethren? Monsanto won't say.I said that it happens, it's not as if I claimed it doesn't. How is Monsanto supposed to know the distance? Is there some magic way to determine this, other than planting them with various sizes of buffer crop zones around them?
What about the deathes of butterflies, ladybugs, and bees that eat the GM seed pollen in those fields and that carry to other fields and the environment. These insects are essential in the pollination of crops and to the existance of organic farms.The monarch butterfly thing was way overblown, if that's what you mean. They don't actually come into the right stage at the right time to be affected. What about beneficial insects killed and mutated by pesticides and fertilizers?
And yes the grain/seed can be tested but not until after the fact. After the contamination has occured. Further, the contamination has to be suspected, or us green types pressure/sue for the tests to be run.My point, again, is that agriculture has always done this. Nobody ever saw it as "contamination" even when they were throwing radiation-mutated crops all over the place. But it always was "contamination." I think we should keep our perspective on that.
Not until after it's contaminated farmers fields and the farmers crop has been confiscated or the farmer is forced to pay Monsanto for use of seed he never planted.Yes he did plant it, on purpose. That was the reason for the lawsuit against Percy Schmeiser.
An interesting article that clarifies some of the issues and confusion surrounding GE plantings. I also thought the outcome showed the clout of Monsanto.
http://www.keepmainefree.org/ld1219.html
I disagree; I feel there is a lot of confusion in that article.
Again we have the "GM crops cause more allergies" claim. :rolleyes:
The discussion of Eprex showing failings of our federal government is incredibly facile - Eprex is the name given to the drug outside the United States and a quick search tells the story. Procrit, sold in the States, has not had that problem.
The tomato graphic with fish fins at the top underscores the spirit of disinformation on that page; there are no fish genes in tomatoes. I would like to see the people of Maine base their decisions on data, not rumors.
I can see you don't like Monsanto. That's fine, just don't conflate that with GM as a technology; other companies are working on it as well. I can see disliking how industry got into the legislative process, and again, I don't see what that has to do with GM as a technology.
There's another that doesn't sound hysterical but it does sound like more than "nuisance" to me:
http://www.connectotel.com/gmfood/is161205.txtI already covered that, it was the one sterile charlock plant (Brassica kaber) in the UK. The same story mentioned two wild turnips found that were also herbicide-resistant, although they did not test positive for GM. Those are Brassica rapa. So it's the same thing I already discussed.
But more and more people there are also protesting against GM seed in those countries as well. And there is corruption in governments everywhere. Just because its allowed in doesn't mean that the people wanted it in.People protesting might be because the thing is bad, or because they are misinformed and/or scared. Governments certainly have corruption, however, I see that as a separate issue from the merits of GM technology itself.
Further the benefits of increased yields and decreased need of pesticides just don't seem to be there. That was the touted benefit of these GM seeds, wasn't it?Most of them have not been engineered for greater yields so far. Farmers have continued to buy the pricier herbicide-resistant seeds because it is cost effective - they are able to use less herbicides, enough to where it offsets the higher seed cost.
At this point I'm going to just agree to disagree. We could each go on forever cherry picking articles and incidents that support our own particular views.Not sure what you think my views are here. Just because I'm not actively trying to ban GM doesn't make me some kind of enemy.
Also the fact that allergens, contaminations, encrouchment, and environment and human effects usually take a generation or more to become evident (especially so with the producer suppressing data). We're now in that timeframe. I expect to see more negative news on GM crops.

Something to think about.New crops have always brought new allergens, contaminations, encroachment, and environment and human effects. Why should GM crops be different?

[ysabella]

I'm old enough to remember the effects of DT on the environment and what it took to get it banned.Do you mean DDT? And so you think they shouldn't use it in Africa to fight malaria?

[ysabella]

Going back to the bit about allergies, excess omega 6 causes inflammation. Upping your omega 3 oils and cutting down on omega 6 rich food (grains, seeds, most nuts and grain fed meat) helps. The change in my own problems from taking a super high dose of omega 3 has been great.

eg. see
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsSupplements/Omega3FattyAcidscs.html
Sounds better than picking up an intestinal parasite! :D

[theoldlady]

Actually, we have been manipulating genes in our food since we started being farmers instead of hunters and gatherers. That is what farming does... pick the "best" and grow/raise more of it. Now we are just speeding up the process.You can crossbreed for a million years and not add a bug gene, fish gene, or animal gene to a tomato. That takes much more invasive meddling on a cellular level than mere crossbreeding and selection of more desirable traits.

[Zuleikaa]

Do you mean DDT? And so you think they shouldn't use it in Africa to fight malaria?
Yes, I meant DDT and yes I think they shouldn't use it in Africa to fight malaria. There are other, safer alternatives than DDT.

I look at using DDT in Africa as dumping something there we've banned using here.

[Angeline]

Yes! Rethinking....

Thanks everyone for all your input. I guess that the only thing I know is that non-organic whole wheat causes a debilitating reaction in me. Sigh...

Organic means more than non GM. It also means no pesticides, no chemical fertilizer etc etc.

Maybe you're allergic to something like that.

[tom sawyer]

Susan we share MANY genes with other types of animals, and plants. We share many of the same biochemical processes.

Zuleikaa, its not as simple as us dumping pesticides that are outlawed here. In Africa they can't AFFORD the alternatives, heck they can't afford DDT in a lot pf places. Its the same with anti-malarial drugs. There are better drugs, but noone can afford them.

[tom sawyer]

Does organic mean non-GM? I doubt it. Now, it would preclude the GM crops that are resistant to broad-spectrum herbicides, because you couldn't spray the herbicides. But I am willing to bet you could grow canola organically.

[Lisa N]

Organic means more than non GM. It also means no pesticides, no chemical fertilizer etc etc.

Maybe you're allergic to something like that.


Could be. For years a friend of mine was convinced that he was allergic to lemons (had bad reactions whenever he ate lemons or anything with lemons in it). Turns out that he's allergic to a common pesticide sprayed ON the lemons and not the lemons themselves. ;)

[Zuleikaa]

Zuleikaa, its not as simple as us dumping pesticides that are outlawed here. In Africa they can't AFFORD the alternatives, heck they can't afford DDT in a lot pf places. Its the same with anti-malarial drugs. There are better drugs, but noone can afford them.Actually, a lot of third world countries are going back to some of the natural ways they've grown grops. They're discovering that some of the native ways were more efficient and effective.

More modern doesn't make something better. And the fact that poison is affordable doesn't justify the horrendous impact on the environment and in human and animal birth defects. JMO.

[ysabella]

You can crossbreed for a million years and not add a bug gene, fish gene, or animal gene to a tomato. That takes much more invasive meddling on a cellular level than mere crossbreeding and selection of more desirable traits.
See, none of those genes have ever been used in tomatoes. This is my point, about disinformation.

There are some bacillus genes in other crops (corn, for example). There are no fish or animal genes in any food crops, there never have been, period. Animal genes have been moved around in the lab, and that's all.

[ysabella]

Yes, I meant DDT and yes I think they shouldn't use it in Africa to fight malaria. There are other, safer alternatives than DDT.

I look at using DDT in Africa as dumping something there we've banned using here.
Okay, just wanted to make sure I knew what you were saying.

[Angeline]

Actually, a lot of third world countries are going back to some of the natural ways they've grown grops. They're discovering that some of the native ways were more efficient and effective.

Actually, Big Agro did the same thing for agriculture than big Pharma. They have convinced farmers here and abroad that chemical farming is the only way to go, and so have created a class of farmers dependant on their chemicals. Chemicals to kill the insects, chemicals to treat the soil, chemicals to correct the damage caused by chemicals and techniques. Just as big Pharma did for with drugs.

I read an really interesting article once about how a farmer managed to get his farm to be considerably more productive and profitable AFTER he decided to forego chemicals and intensive farming methods. It's possible to be organic and profitable the organic way just as it is to be healthy without drugs. But you'll never hear Big Corpo say that.

[ysabella]

Organic means more than non GM. It also means no pesticides, no chemical fertilizer etc etc.

Maybe you're allergic to something like that.
Actually, organic farmers still use some chemicals and pesticides, just not from the 'prohibited' list. They just use different ones that are considered more natural, but are not always less toxic (such as Bt pesticide). And, just because something is labeled 'organic' at your local grocery store doesn't mean it passes the standards you might be thinking it does.

You really have to look at the certification of an organic food - the government standards are generally lower than regional certifying bodies' standards, at least they have been in the past. Here is a list (http://www.organicts.com/organic_info/certification/usa/usacert.html) of organic certification bodies in the US (here's a list for the UK (http://www.aboutorganics.co.uk/organic_information/organic_accreditation.htm) in case that's handy for anyone). You would have to then look at the certification body and their standards. Here is an overview (http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/organcert.html) of organic certification processes in the US and an effort to create better standards (it's kind of Byzantine at the moment). Here is the home page (http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexNet.htm) of the USDA National Organic Program.

[ysabella]

I'd be interested as to how Big Ag made farmers all over the world abandon their farming practices, if you have any proof of that.

Consumers have become willing in recent years to pay more for organic products, which is why they have become trendy and profitable. As we see in this thread, people have some completely mistaken ideas, such as organics are always totally pesticide- and chemical-free, and that animal genes are rampant in biotech foods. So I am concluding that some of the reasons why people are willing to pay more, are not based in fact.

[tom sawyer]

As I understand it, they're spraying DDT to kill mosquitoes, not as part of an ag program. With something like a million people dying of malaria each year, the consequences of not spraying are maybe more horrific than the consequences of spraying.

The agriculture being practiced in Africa, is often much the same as its been done for hundreds of years. I read an interesting article in the Smithsonian about banana breeding programs, seems bananas are a staple food in much of Africa.

[tom sawyer]

Agriculture as an industry has definitely seen a consolidation/centralization that has been a common trend throughout all aspects of the economy. Its a result of low energy prices, combined with a need to lower costs. Fewer and larger production facilities are more efficient, whether you are talking farms or cars or TVs. In our free market economy, if you can produce for a lower price you are rewarded, regardless of whether your method of production is environmentally friendly or sustainable in the long term. I don't really blame big ag, any more than I blame any other large corporate entity. But I do think that increased energy costs may start the trend back in the other direction, towards decentralization to put product production closer to the point of usage.

[arc]

As I understand it, they're spraying DDT to kill mosquitoes, not as part of an ag program. With something like a million people dying of malaria each year, the consequences of not spraying are maybe more horrific than the consequences of spraying.

DDT is seen as critical there to eradicate malaria:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256050&area=/insight/insight__africa/#

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/

[Zuleikaa]

DDT is seen as critical there to eradicate malaria:

http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?articleid=256050&area=/insight/insight__africa/#

http://www.fightingmalaria.org/
Here's another viewpoint.

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global_health/id/malaria/news/afrmal_ddt.html

[arc]

Well, as the other articles said, it's a politically charged topic. It's also off-topic, so I'm done.

[Lessara]

I found out that if you are allergic to soy you can develop an allergy to peanuts. Which looks like I did. :(