Re: [DIYbio] Re: New York Times - Arsenic in Our Chicken?

It's true that GM-tech could reverse the trend, but nitrogen from the Haber process it's so vastly energy intensive, it trumps relatively minor differences in mechanisation. So until N-fixing becomes commonplace outside alders and legumes, small scale/organic trumps industrial for "resilience" and environmental impact.

Simon Quellen Field <sfield@scitoys.com> wrote:

>Citation? I'm seeing several conflicting sources.
>
>It looks like 'organic' farming uses more fuel in general, except for
>the
>large amount of fuel needed to make nitrogen fertilizers. Herbicides
>and pesticides are energy users to a lesser extent.
>
>It would seem to me that genetically engineering food to fix its own
>nitrogen and produce its own pesticides and herbicides would make it
>quite a bit cheaper and more energy efficient than organic farming.
>
>And organic farmers would never stoop to allowing such Frankenfoods
>on their farms.
>
>But I'd eat them. I'd even be happy to grow them here on my
>farm<http://birdfarm.org/>
>.
>
>The London Telegraph dutifully
>reported<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/20/norganic20.xml>
> the
>> results of a study by the Manchester Business School, comparing
>energy use
>> in organic and conventional farming systems. In a life cycle
>assessment -
>> farm to fork - it found that many organic crops use more energy.
>> The energy needed to grow organic tomatoes is 1.9 times that of
>> conventional methods, the study found. Organic milk requires 80 per
>cent
>> more land to produce than conventional milk and creates 20 per cent
>more
>> carbon dioxide, it says.
>>
>
>
>
>> *Energy use in organic agriculture*
>> With non-renewable energy sources waning and mounting concern over
>> greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the food system's energy burden is
>a
>> critical task. An FAO paper published in August 2007 analyzed energy
>use in
>> organic agriculture, in comparison with conventional agriculture.
>> The paper found that organic agriculture uses less fossil fuel based
>> inputs and has a better carbon footprint than standard agricultural
>> practices. This is because conventional agriculture production
>utilises
>> more overall energy than organic systems due to heavy reliance on
>> energy-intensive fertilisers, chemicals, and concentrated feed, which
>> organic farmers forego. Importantly, organic operations can also
>provide
>> promising possibilities for further energy reductions throughout the
>food
>> system.
>> The summary of the paper is reproduced below. The full paper can be
>> downloaded at
>http://www.fao.org/docs/eims/upload/233069/energy-use-oa.pdf
>>
>
>
>
>-----
>Get a free science project every week!
>"http://scitoys.com/newsletter.html"
>
>
>
>
>On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Cathal Garvey
><cathalgarvey@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> You forgot to factor oil requirements into your formulas. Industrial
>> farming is only "efficient" in terms of labour and land use, but it
>> consumes far more oil, generally.
>>
>> Yes, I realise this trend isn't true of method X in circumstance Y.
>>
>> mad_casual <ademlookes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Aflatoxin in peanut butter? Check.
>> >Mercury in vaccines? Check.
>> >Mercury in tuna? Check.
>> >Arsenic in Chicken? Check.
>> >BSE in Beef? Check.
>> >
>> >Consuming it all in spite of the risks? Check.
>> >
>> >Of note; Brand name peanut butters are lowest in aflatoxin as their
>> >production processes are more efficient and they dilute out the
>> >aflatoxin
>> >with things like palm oil and fully hydrogenated fatty acids.
>Organic
>> >vegetables are notorious for requiring extra effort and care in
>> >preventing
>> >food borne pathogens that have been automated out of modern
>industrial
>> >farming. Neither side has the winning formula; either food
>production
>> >is
>> >cheap, centralized, efficient, and meets some core set of minimum
>> >standard
>> >or it is decentralized, expensive, labor intensive, and meets a wide
>> >array
>> >of rather whimsical standards.
>> >
>> >On Monday, April 23, 2012 8:29:08 PM UTC-5, Nathan McCorkle wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/05/opinion/kristof-arsenic-in-our-chicken.html
>> >> "
>> >> OP-ED COLUMNIST
>> >> Arsenic in Our Chicken?
>> >> By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
>> >> Published: April 4, 2012
>> >>
>> >> Let's hope you're not reading this column while munching on a
>chicken
>> >
>> >> sandwich.
>> >>
>> >> That's because my topic today is a pair of new scientific studies
>> >> suggesting that poultry on factory farms are routinely fed
>caffeine,
>> >> active ingredients of Tylenol and Benadryl, banned antibiotics and
>> >> even arsenic.
>> >>
>> >> "We were kind of floored," said Keeve E. Nachman, a co-author of
>both
>> >> studies and a scientist at the Johns Hopkins University Center for
>a
>> >> Livable Future.  "It's unbelievable what we found."
>> >>
>> >> He said that the researchers had intended to test only for
>> >> antibiotics. But assays for other chemicals and pharmaceuticals
>> >didn't
>> >> cost extra, so researchers asked for those results as well.
>> >>
>> >> "We haven't found anything that is an immediate health concern,"
>> >> Nachman added. "But it makes me question how comfortable we are
>> >> feeding a number of these things to animals that we're eating. It
>> >> bewilders me."
>> >>
>> >> Likewise, I grew up on a farm, and thought I knew what to expect
>in
>> >my
>> >> food. But Benadryl? Arsenic? These studies don't mean that you
>should
>> >> dump the contents of your refrigerator, but they do raise serious
>> >> questions about the food we eat and how we should shop.
>> >>
>> >> It turns out that arsenic has routinely been fed to poultry (and
>> >> sometimes hogs) because it reduces infections and makes flesh an
>> >> appetizing shade of pink. There's no evidence that such low levels
>of
>> >> arsenic harm either chickens or the people eating them, but
>still...
>> >>
>> >> Big Ag doesn't advertise the chemicals it stuffs into animals, so
>the
>> >> scientists conducting these studies figured out a clever way to
>> >detect
>> >> them. Bird feathers, like human fingernails, accumulate chemicals
>and
>> >> drugs that an animal is exposed to. So scientists from Johns
>Hopkins
>> >> University and Arizona State University examined feather meal — a
>> >> poultry byproduct made of feathers.
>> >>
>> >> One study, just published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal,
>> >> Environmental Science & Technology, found that feather meal
>routinely
>> >> contained a banned class of antibiotics called fluoroquinolones.
>> >These
>> >> antibiotics (such as Cipro), are illegal in poultry production
>> >because
>> >> they can breed antibiotic-resistant "superbugs" that harm humans.
>> >> Already, antibiotic-resistant infections kill more Americans
>annually
>> >> than AIDS, according to the Infectious Diseases Society of
>America.
>> >>
>> >> The same study also found that one-third of feather-meal samples
>> >> contained an antihistamine that is the active ingredient of
>Benadryl.
>> >> The great majority of feather meal contained acetaminophen, the
>> >active
>> >> ingredient in Tylenol. And feather-meal samples from China
>contained
>> >> an antidepressant that is the active ingredient in Prozac.
>> >>
>> >> Poultry-growing literature has recommended Benadryl to reduce
>anxiety
>> >> among chickens, apparently because stressed chickens have tougher
>> >meat
>> >> and grow more slowly. Tylenol and Prozac presumably serve the same
>> >> purpose.
>> >>
>> >> Researchers found that most feather-meal samples contained
>caffeine.
>> >> It turns out that chickens are sometimes fed coffee pulp and green
>> >tea
>> >> powder to keep them awake so that they can spend more time eating.
>> >(Is
>> >> that why they need the Benadryl, to calm them down?)
>> >>
>> >> The other peer-reviewed study, reported in a journal called
>Science
>> >of
>> >> the Total Environment, found arsenic in every sample of feather
>meal
>> >> tested. Almost 9 in 10 broiler chickens in the United States had
>been
>> >> fed arsenic, according to a 2011 industry estimate.
>> >>
>> >> These findings will surprise some poultry farmers because even
>they
>> >> often don't know what chemicals they feed their birds. Huge food
>> >> companies require farmers to use a proprietary food mix, and the
>> >> farmer typically doesn't know exactly what is in it. I asked the
>> >> United States Poultry and Egg Association for comment, but it said
>> >> that it had not seen the studies and had nothing more to say.
>> >>
>> >> What does all this mean for consumers? The study looked only at
>> >> feathers, not meat, so we don't know exactly what chemicals reach
>the
>> >> plate, or at what levels. The uncertainties are enormous, but I
>asked
>> >> Nachman about the food he buys for his own family. "I've been
>> >studying
>> >> food-animal production for some time, and the more I study, the
>more
>> >> I'm drawn to organic," he said. "We buy organic."
>> >>
>> >> I'm the same. I used to be skeptical of organic, but the more
>> >> reporting I do on our food supply, the more I want my own family
>> >> eating organic — just to be safe.
>> >>
>> >> To me, this underscores the pitfalls of industrial farming. When I
>> >was
>> >> growing up on our hopele
--
Sent from K-9 Mail on Android